Antioxidant effect of olive leaf extract on methotrexate-induced hepatic injury in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to investigate the possible protective effect of olive leaf extract on liver and blood parameters in methotrexate (MTX)-induced toxicity in rats. Methods: Normal control rats were injected I.P with (1 ml of distilled water) once daily. Group II: Rats were injected orally by gavage with olive leaves extract (of 0.5 g/kg body wt) once daily. Group III: Rats were injected intraperitoneally with MTX of 20mg/kg once in the day 12th day. Group IV: Rats were injected orally by gavage with olive leave extract (0.5 g/kg body weight) once daily followed by I.P. injection of MTX a single dose of 20 mg/kg in the 12th day.On the 14 th day, rats were sacrificed by decapitation. Whole blood collected and liver tissues were kept in formalin and glutaraldehyde fixatives for microscopic and ultrastructural examination respectively. Results: This study showed that hepatocellular damage was clearly more evident in the MTX group than the MTX+Olive leaf extract group besides, MTX administration elevated AST , ALT and LDH activities whereas they were depressed with olive leaf extraction administration and this was proofed ultra-structurally. Conclusion: The present study indicates that olive leaf extract may be thetherapeutic benefit agentagainst MTX-cytotoxicity.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".