MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416534947 · doi:10.14258/jcprm.20250416616

COMPONENT COMPOSITION, ANTIRADICAL AND ANTIMICROBIAL ACTIVITY OF EXTRACTS OF ST. JOHN'S WORT OF THE KRASNOYARSK TERRITORY

2025· article· W4416534947 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elena Evgenievna Savelyeva, Н. А. Булгакова

Bibliographic record

Venuechemistry of plant raw material · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMedicinal Plants and Bioactive Compounds
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntimicrobialStaphylococcus aureusRaw materialAspergillus nigerEscherichia coliPseudomonas aeruginosaAntioxidant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The component composition of aqueous-alcoholic extracts of the above-ground part of St. John's wort grown in the Krasnoyarsk Territory was studied using high-performance liquid chromatography. The highest amount of all compounds was determined in the extract on 40% ethyl alcohol. In combination with the thin-layer chromatography method, the presence of one compound from the group of condensed anthraquinone derivatives, hypericin, was established. The total content of phenolic compounds, the content of flavonoids and tannins in the extracts were determined. The antiradical and antimicrobial activity of the extracts was studied. The maximum value of antiradical activity (100%) was registered for the extract on 40% ethyl alcohol. Extracts prepared in the ratio of raw material : extractant 1 : 100 did not show antimicrobial activity against Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Candida albicans. Extracts prepared in a raw material : extractant ratio of 1 : 1 showed some antimicrobial activity only against Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) and (MRSA).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuechemistry of plant raw materialSame topicMedicinal Plants and Bioactive CompoundsFrench-language works237,207