A Comparison between Extract Products of Magnolia officinalis on Memory Impairment and Amyloidogenesis in a Transgenic Mouse Model of Alzheimer's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The components of Magnolia officinalis have well known to act anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidative and neuroprotective activities. These efficacies have been sold many products as nutritional supplement extracted from bark of Magnolia officinalis. Thus, to assess and compare neuroprotective effect in the nutritional supplement (Magnolia Extract(TM), Health Freedom Nutrition LLC, USA) and our ethanol extract of Magnolia officinalis (BioLand LTD, Korea), we investigated memorial improving and anti-Alzheimer's disease effects of extract products of Magnolia officinalis in a transgenic AD mice model. Oral pretreatment of two extract products of Magnolia officinalis (10 mg/kg/day in 0.05% ethanol) into drinking water for 3 months ameliorated memorial dysfunction and prevented Aβ accumulation in the brain of Tg2576 mice. In addition, extract products of Magnolia officinalis also decreased expression of β-site APP cleaving enzyme 1 (BACE1), amyloid precursor protein (APP) and its product, C99. Although both two extract products of Magnolia officinalis could show preventive effect of memorial dysfunction and Aβ accumulation, our ethanol extract of Magnolia officinalis (BioLand LTD, Korea) could be more effective than Magnolia Extract(TM) (Health Freedom Nutrition LLC, USA). Therefore, our results showed that extract products of Magnolia officinalis were effective for prevention and treatment of AD through memorial improving and anti-amyloidogenic effects via down-regulating β-secretase activity, and neuroprotective efficacy of Magnolia extracts could be differed by cultivating area and manufacturing methods.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".