MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164260407 · doi:10.5539/ijb.v3n1p174

Wound Healing Activity of Extracts of Malva sylvestris and Stachys lavandulifolia

2010· article· en· W2164260407 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdollah Ghasemi Pirbalouti, Abed Koohpyeh

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytochemistry and Biological Activities
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIslamic Azad University
KeywordsTraditional medicineWound healingLamiaceaeNitrofurazoneMedicineBiologyChemistrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The flowers of Stachys lavandulifolia Vahl (Lamiaceae) and Malva sylvestris Linn (Malvaceae) are traditionally used to treat various skin disorders, antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory. The chloroform extract of M. sylvestris flowers and aqueous extract of S. lavandulifolia flowers were used to evaluate the wound healing activity at 200 mg/kg/day dose. Wounds were induced in Wistar rats divided into four groups as following; Group-I was treated with cold cream. Groups-II and -III were treated with cold cream containing of extracts, Group-IV received the standard drug (Nitrofurazone). The efficacy of treatment was evaluated based on wound area and histopathological characteristics. The extract-treated animals by M. sylvestris showed significant reduction in the wound area when compared with other groups. Also, histopathological studies of the tissue obtained on days 6th, 9th and 16th from the extract-treated by M. sylvestris showed increased well organized bands of collagen, more fibroblasts and few inflammatory cells.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations41
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of BiologySame topicPhytochemistry and Biological ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207