Traditional Knowledge Guided Research to Identify Legitimate Substitutes for Rare and Unavailable Herbs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As per the principles and practice of Ayurveda, herbs with similar pharmacological properties can be used as substitutes whenever the original herb is in short supply. There are at least 30 pairs of herbs and substitutes that are mentioned in classical Ayurveda texts [1]. Cyperus rotundus L. (Cyperaceae) is claimed to be a legitimate substitute for Aconitum heterophyllum Wall. ex Royle (Ranunculaceae). A. heterophyllum is a rare and expensive Himalayan herb while C. rotundus is a common, tropical, marshy weed. Going by published literature, the two herbs are taxonomically unrelated and dissimilar in major chemicals. However, our preliminary studies indicate that the chromatographic profiles [2] and pharmacological (anti-diarrhoeal) activity are similar in the two drugs making further exploration worthwhile. Research of this kind is essential to identify new substitutes for unavailable herbs and to throw light on the Ayurvedic strategy adopted for selecting substitute drugs. Acknowledgements : Thanks go to Al-Ameen College of Pharmacy for conducting the animal studies. Financial support from the TATA Trusts is gratefully acknowledged. References: [1] Sastri, B (Ed.) (2002) Yogaratnakara. Chaukhamba, Sanskrit Sansthan. Varanasi, p.171. [2] Shankar, D. et al. (2007) Curr Sci, 92(11): 1499–1505.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".