Additional file 1: of Growth environment and organ specific variation in in-vitro cytoprotective activities of Picea mariana in PC12 cells exposed to glucose toxicity: a plant used for treatment of diabetes symptoms by the Cree of Eeyou Istchee (Quebec, Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Figure S1. (A-T). Comparison of cytoprotective, mitogenic and cytotoxic activities of P. mariana pooled needle extracts from forest and bog populations in a PC12-AC model of high glucose stress. Populations are listed in ascending order from coastal west [1] to inland east [21] with forest (F) and bog (B) populations next to one another for comparison. Organ type is specified as the last number in the code; needle (N). Therefore, each graph has a code identifying population number, habitat type and organ type above it in that order. Bioactivity was assessed using the formazan dye WST which measures mitochondrial dehydrogenase activity. Treatment wells containing extract were standardized to the normoglucose control (C) and compared to this and the high glucose control (HG) for the determination of protective, mitogenic or toxic effects. A students t-test was used in order to determine the significant difference between the normoglucose control (100%) and the high glucose control (56.799%, n = 54 wells/condition, bar graph, p ≤ 0.05). Anova analysis was employed in order to compare the % viability for each concentration 0.25, 0.50, 1.00 and 2.00 μg/mL to the normoglucose and high glucose controls. Differences were deemed significant (*cytoprotection, #mitogenic) when p ≤ 0.05 (n = 3 treatment wells/concentration). (PDF 973 kb)
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.867 | 0.146 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".