MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055139917 · doi:10.4236/health.2011.36062

Teucrium polium plant extract provokes significant cell death in human lung cancer cells

2011· article· en· W2055139917 on OpenAlexafffund
Khadidja Haïdara, Amal Alachkar, Ala‐Eddin Al Moustafa

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytochemistry and Biological Activities
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsLung cancerMedicineTraditional medicineProgrammed cell deathCancerCell cycleCell growthCellMalignancyCancer cellApoptosisPharmacologyCancer researchOncologyBiologyInternal medicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lung cancer is the first common malignancy worldwide; in view of the limited success of available treatment modalities for this cancer, alternative and complementary strategies need to be developed. On the other hand, Teucrium polium (TP) is a medicinal plant that has been used for more than two thousand years for treating many diseases such as abdominal pain, indigestion and diabetes in the Middle East. However, the effect of TP plant extract on hu-man non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has not been investigated yet. In this study, we exam-ined the effects of TP extract on cell prolifera-tion, cell cycle progression and cell death in H322 and A549 lung cell lines. Our results show that TP plant extract inhibits cell proliferation and deregulates cell cycle progression. More importantly, TP plant extract causes a dramatic cell death in both cell lines in comparison with untreated cells. Our data suggest that this plant extract could have an important therapeutic role in the treatment of human NSCLC.

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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations21
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthSame topicPhytochemistry and Biological ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207