The efficacy of Echinacea in a 3‐D tissue model of human airway epithelium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the antirhinovirus efficacy of a standardized preparation of Echinacea purpurea (Echinaforce) in a 3-dimensional organotypic model of normal human airway epithelium (EpiAirway tissue). Individual replicate tissue samples, maintained as inserts in culture for 3 days or 3 weeks, were infected with rhinovirus type 1A (RV1A), Echinacea alone, a combination of the two, or medium only. None of the treatments affected the histological appearance or integrity of the tissues, all of which maintained a high level of cell viability and preservation of cilia. RV infection resulted in increased mucopolysaccharide inclusions in the goblet cells, but this feature was reversed by Echinacea treatment. This result was confirmed by measurements of mucin secretion, which was stimulated by RV but reversed by Echinacea, suggesting that mucus production during colds could be ameliorated by Echinacea. We did not find evidence of virus replication, although the RV-infected tissues secreted substantial amounts of the pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-6 and IL-8 (CXCL8), and this response was reversed by Echinacea treatment. These results confirmed previous findings derived from studies of bronchial and lung epithelial cell lines, namely, that RV infection results in a substantial inflammatory response in the absence of virus replication.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".