MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Licorice and its potential beneficial effects in common oro‐dental diseases

2011· review· en· W2100516071 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOral Diseases · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmacological Effects of Natural Compounds
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlycyrrhizinGlycyrrhizaMedicineTraditional medicinePeriodontitisDentistryPharmacologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Licorice, the name given to the roots and stolons of Glycyrrhiza species, has been used since ancient times as a traditional herbal remedy. Licorice contains several classes of secondary metabolites with which numerous human health benefits have been associated. Recent research suggests that licorice and its bioactive ingredients such as glycyrrhizin, glabridin, licochalcone A, licoricidin, and licorisoflavan A possess potential beneficial effects in oral diseases. This paper reviews the effects of licorice and licorice constituents on both the oral microbial pathogens and the host immune response involved in common ora-dental diseases (dental caries, periodontitis, candidiasis, and recurrent aphthous ulcers). It also summarizes results of clinical trials that investigated the potential beneficial effects of licorice and its constituents for preventing/treating oro-dental diseases.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.346 · 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