Differences of Hedysari Radix and Astragali Radix alternative in Fuqi Zhihan Granules on immunity in immunosuppressed mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM To comparatively study the differences of Fuqi Zhihan Granules on immunosuppressed mice in cellular immunity in the substitution of Hedysari Radix for Astragali Radix.METHODS Mice injected intraperitoneally with cyclophosphamide were modeled into the immunosuppressed mouse and intragastrically administered with the same dose of Hedysari Radix replaced by Astragali Radix in Fuqi Zhihan Granules through the determination of macrophages in vitro macrophage phagocytic capacity,spleen lymphocyte killing activity,the percentage of T lymphocyte subsets,serum IL-1β level to compare both cyclophosphamide antagonism.RESULTS Fuqi Zhihan Granules containing Hedysari Radix and Astragali Radix could significantly increase the level of IL-1β,and antagonize immunosuppressive effect caused by cyclophosphamide,concluding promoting T lymphocyte proliferation,cytotoxic activity of NK cell,quantity of T lymphocyte subgroup,and phagocytosis of the macrophage of varying degrees.Hedysari Radix was superb to Astragali Radix in Fuqi Zhihan Granules in raising T lymphocyte proliferation and IL-1β level.CONCLUSION Hedysari Radix has a similar role in cell immunity regulation with Astragali Radix,and Hedysari Radix has better effect in T cell proliferation.
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".