Evaluation of the Antiproliferative Effects of Essiac™ on In Vitro and In Vivo Models of Prostate Cancer Compared to Paclitaxel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Essiac, a widely consumed, sparsely tested herbal tea, was evaluated for preparation consistency and antiproliferative effects on prostate cancer cells and xenografts. High performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) was used to compare different lots of Essiac and evaluate extraction consistency by comparing peak areas in concentrated preparations. Repeated analysis of one lot showed < 2% RSD between corresponding peaks. Absolute peak areas varied widely between lots, but similarity in relative size of corresponding peaks was observed. Cytotoxic effects of Essiac were tested in vitro by crystal violet assay and analysis of cell cycle distribution by flow cytometry, but no differences between control and treatment groups was observed. Paclitaxel was used as a positive control in cell cycle analysis and was the only treatment which showed significant effects on cell cycle distribution. Toxicity in nude mice was tested, and efficacy in inhibiting PC-3 xenograft growth. No toxicity or tumour size difference was observed dosing up to 240 mg/kg QD, over 28 days, excepting the positive control group treated with paclitaxel. Ki-67 and PCNA expression was analyzed in treated tumors, but no difference in expression of either marker was observed. These evaluations suggest Essiac has no marked antiproliferative effect on the models tested.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".