MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083006005 · doi:10.5539/jps.v4n2p44

Antinociceptive and Anti-Inflammatory Activities of the Aqueous Leaf Extract of Tamarindus indica L. in Albino Rats

2015· article· en· W2083006005 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S. T. Akor, B. Wampana, O. A. Sodipo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Plant Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEthnobotanical and Medicinal Plants Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhytochemicalAnti-inflammatoryTerpenoidAcute toxicityGlycosideNociceptionChemistryTraditional medicineAqueous extractMedian lethal doseToxicityPharmacologyMedicineBiochemistryStereochemistryReceptorOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research was conducted to investigate the phytochemical constituents, acute toxicity, the anti-inflammatory and antinociceptive activities of the aqueous extract of Tamarindus indica L. (AQETI) leaves. Phytochemical constituents present in AQETI were found to be flavonoids, cardiac glycosides, tannins and terpenoids which might be responsible for the established anti-inflammatory and antinociceptive activities in the plant extract. The leaf extract of the plant was found to be moderately toxic with an intraperitoneal acute toxicity (i.p. LD50) of 566 mg/kg. AQETI produced significant (p < 0.05) and dose-dependent anti-inflammatory and antinociceptive activities. AQETI (400 mg/kg) exhibited a maximum percentage inhibition (56.97%) in acetic acid-induced writhing response and at 30 min increased the pain threshold by 100 % in the tail immersion test. In the hot plate method, AQETI (400 mg/kg) showed a similar percentage inhibition (84.62%) at 30 and 60 min. The results demonstrate that the aqueous extract of Tamarindus indica L. leaves contains some pharmacologically active substances, was moderately toxic and possessed significant anti-inflammatory and antinociceptive acivities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Plant StudiesSame topicEthnobotanical and Medicinal Plants StudiesFrench-language works237,207