↓ Skip to main content

Multi-Detector Characterization of Grape Seed Extract to Enable in silico Safety Assessment

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Chemistry, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Multi-Detector Characterization of Grape Seed Extract to Enable in silico Safety Assessment
Published in
Frontiers in Chemistry, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fchem.2018.00334
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vincent P. Sica, Catherine Mahony, Timothy R. Baker

Abstract

Demands for increased analytical rigor have been growing within the botanical and dietary supplement industry due to concerns relative to safety, efficacy, and quality. Adulteration, ambiguous definitions, and insufficient perspective on safety are some of the major issues that arise when selecting a botanical extract. Herein, our comprehensive analytical approach is detailed for the selection of grape seed extracts. This approach provided characterization for the constituents above a threshold of toxicological concern by subjecting the extract to UHPLC-UV-CAD-HRMS and GC-FID & GC-HRMS. Thus, constituents within a wide range of volatility were evaluated. Furthermore, the extract was compared to authenticated botanical materials to confirm that no adulteration took place and was also compared to other grape seed extract sources to confirm that the material falls within the general profile. Finally, these data were cleared via an in silico safety assessment based on the list of constituents above the threshold of toxicological concern.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 32%
Other 4 21%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Master 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 4 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 21%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 16%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 September 2018.
All research outputs
#18,646,262
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Chemistry
#2,238
of 6,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,706
of 331,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Chemistry
#75
of 194 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,040 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,095 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 194 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.