Acute and Subacute Toxic Study of Aqueous Leaf Extract of <i>Combretum Molle</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the acute and subacute toxicity of the aqueous leaf extract of Combretum molle.Methods: The acute toxicity of the extract was evaluated in rats. The animals were orally administered with doses ranging from 2000 to 8000 mg/kg and observed continuously for the first 4 h, then hourly for the next 24 h, and finally, 6-hourly for 72 h. Control animals received orally normal saline. The rats were observed carefully for mortality, pain as well as respiratory movements. For subacute toxicity, 6 groups of 6 rats (3 male and 3 female) each received intraperitoneally, normal saline (control), 400, 600, 800, 1000 and 1200 mg/kg of the extract, respectively, thrice daily for 15 days. At the end of the treatment period, the animals were sacrificed and their organs (liver, heart and kidney) removed for macroscopic examination.Results: For the acute toxicit test, no death and signs of poisoning were observed in the treated groups. In the subacute tstudy, LD50 in the rats after intraperitoneal administration was 700 mg/kg (456 - 896, 95 % confidence interval). The clinical signs of poisoning (motor difficulties, decreased respiratory rate, and tremor preceding death) were observed, suggesting overt toxicity throughout the neuromuscular system. However, histological examination of vital organs showed normal architecture suggesting no morphological abnormalities in the heart, kidney and liver.Conclusion: The results show that the aqueous leaf extract of C. molle is moderately toxic when given intraperitoneally.Keywords: Combretum molle, Acute/subacute toxicity, Histopathology, Rat.
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) | 0.001 | 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".