Phytochemical investigation of Crataegi folium cum flos (hawthorn leaves and flowers) and Hyperici herba (st johns wort aerial parts) hydroalcoholic extracts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Keywords. Hawthorn, St Johns Wort, flavonoids, polyphenols. Abstract. Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) hydroalcoholic extract was prepared by extraction of powdered dried leaves and flowers with ethanol 70% v/v (1:10), by reflux for two hours. St Johns Wort (Hypericum perforatum) hydroalcoholic extract was prepared by extraction of powdered dried flowering aerial parts with ethanol 70% v/v (1:10), by reflux for two hours. Both extracts were qualitative and quantitative analyzed. The qualitative analysis consisted in phytochemical screening and spectroanalytical profile by HPTLC and UV/VIS absorption spectroscopy. Quantitative analyses consisted in determination of total flavonoid content (as rutin) by following colorimetric aluminum chloride method, and total polyphenol content (as gallic acid) by Folin- Ciocalteu method. Results were evaluated statistically and presented as mean of three determinations ± SD (standard deviation). These analyses revealed their complex composition and either some similarities and differences between these two extracts.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".