MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1608359000 · doi:10.5539/jas.v7n10p291

Phytochemical and Antimicrobial Properties of the Aqueous Ethanolic Extract of Saccharum officinarum (Sugarcane) Bark

2015· article· en· W1608359000 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eneh Frank Uchenna, Okechukwu Amara Adaeze, Adindu Chukwuemeka Steve

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicHibiscus Plant Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhytochemicalAntimicrobialTraditional medicineBacteriaBark (sound)Minimum inhibitory concentrationAgar diffusion testPseudomonasSaccharum officinarumPseudomonas aeruginosaBiologyChemistryStaphylococcus aureusMicrobiologyBotanyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phytochemical analysis and antimicrobial activities of the aqueous ethanolic extract of Saccharum officinarum were carried out. The antimicrobial activity was screened by disc diffusion method while the analysis of the different phytochemicals was carried out using standard methods. The result showed that the extract had inhibitory effects on the gram negative bacteria (Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa). The effect of the extract was minimal on Staphylococcus aureus, a gram positive bacteria suggesting some degree of resistance by the organism. The result of the phytochemical screening showed that extract contains saponins, tannins, flavonoids and reducing sugars. The findings show that the plant bark extract has bactericidal activity and could be used in the control and treatment of bacterial infection especially the gram negative bacteria.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicHibiscus Plant Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207