Tamarind Seed Extract Enhances Epidermal Wound Healing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional healing power of tamarind fruits and the established antioxidant activity of the seeds drive the present study. Wound healing efficiency of tamarind seed was evaluated. Different solvents: phosphate buffer saline (PBS), water, methanol and ethanol were used to prepare the extract. Circular wound was inflicted on the nape. 10 µl of 5 µg/ml of extract was applied topically twice daily. Wound area was measured using Adobe ®Photoshop C3 Extended version and the percentage of wound reduction was calculated. PBS extract treatment induced complete wound healing in shortest period (10 days) while water extract, methanol extract and Solcoseryl ointment treatment induced complete wound healing in 11 days and control groups without any treatment took 14 days to heal. Phytochemical screening and Bradford method for protein quantification reveals the presence of alkaloid, saponin and tannin in all samples except PBS extract which tested negative to tannin. Flavonoid tested positive in methanol and ethanol extracts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".