MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048107402 · doi:10.1089/jmf.2011.1707

Antidiarrheal Activity of <i>Laurus nobilis</i> L. Leaf Extract in Rats

2011· article· en· W2048107402 on OpenAlexaff
Esam Qnais, Fuad Abdulla, Ezidin G. Kaddumi, Shtaywy Abdalla

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medicinal Food · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHelicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studies
Canadian institutionsNew York Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaurus nobilisTraditional medicineLauraceaeEC50Castor oilAqueous extractDiarrheaChemistryBiologyFood scienceMedicineBotanyEssential oilIn vitroBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Jordan, the leaves of Laurus nobilis (Family Lauraceae) have been used in folk medicine for the treatment of diarrhea, among other ailments. However, the ethnopharmacology of this plant needs to be scientifically validated. The present work was carried out to evaluate the scientific basis of the antidiarrheal effect of the aqueous extract of L. nobilis leaf. L. nobilis leaf extract significantly inhibited castor oil-induced diarrhea (effective concentration producing 50% of the maximum response [EC(50)]=150±6.4 mg/kg) and reduced castor oil-induced enteropooling in rats (EC(50)=162±5.9 mg/kg). The extract also significantly inhibited intestinal transit of a charcoal meal and exerted a significant dose-dependent relaxation (EC(50)=71±5.3 mg/mL) on rat ileal smooth muscle. The aqueous extract tested positive for flavonoids, alkaloids, and tannins. These results established the efficacy of L. nobilis leaf aqueous extract as an antidiarrheal agent and are consistent with the popular use of the plant in the treatment of gastrointestinal disorders, particularly diarrhea.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations39
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medicinal FoodSame topicHelicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studiesFrench-language works237,207