Comparative Double Blind Clinical Trial Study of Side Effects of Areca catechu L., TTHF, and Mebendazole, in Treatment of Human Mixed Worm Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was carried out in Mahasarakham Primary Healthcare Centre, Mahasarakham province in the area of Northeastern of Thailand. The experiment was carried on with 200 samples with randomized control trial clinical study in order to examine the side effects of Areca catechu Linn., TTHF and Mebendazole after the treatment of antihelmintic activity of mixed worms infection in human . The 3 experimental groups consisted of 50 patients in each group and 50 patients for control group testing with placebo with inclusion and exclusion criteria which were screened by parasitologist of mixed worm infection symptoms samples. The investigation of side effects were investigated after treating the first dose of Areca catechu Linn, TTHF and Mebendazole which were confirmed by the physician and the pharmacist. The side effects data were collected before and after the treatment with Areca catechu Linn. and with placebo. The result showed that Areca catechu Linn. had 20% of diarrhea and 20% of nausea, 20% of diarrhea in Mebendazole and 0% in TTHF. The suggestion of this study should increase the number of samples of worm infected patients and also the numbers of locations in Thailand in order to obtain various kinds of helminthes. Key words: TTHF (Thai Traditional Herbal Formula); Mebendazole; Areca catechu Linn.; Side effects; Antihelmintic activity
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".