Antibacterial Activity of Anacaridum Occidentale on Some Enterotoxin Producing Bacteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Primary screening of ethanolic and aqueous extracts of Anacardium occidentale (bark and leaf) for antimicrobial activity against Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas auroginosa, Shigella dysenteriae, Salmonella typhi and Staphylococcus aureus showed that ethanolic extract was more effective than aqueous extract. The minimum inhibitory concentration ranged from 0.05 g/ml to 0.2 g/ml .The ethanolic extract was found to be bactericidal to all the test bacteria, while the aqueous extract was found to be bacteriostatic to the test bacteria with the exception of the aqueous leaf extract that was bactericidal to Salmonella typhi. The greater the concentration of the extract, the higher the antibacterial activities exerted on the isolates. Salmonella typhi was the most sucesceptible organism to the leaf extract, while Pseudomonas auroginosa was the least sucesceptible organism. Staphphylococcus aureus was the most sucescephple to the ethanolic bark extract and Escherichia coli was the least suceptible organism.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".