The efficacy of herbal medicines against <i>Toxoplasma gondii</i> during the last 3 decades: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the current study was to systematically review papers discussing the efficacy of medicinal herbs against Toxoplasma gondii. Data were systematically collected from published papers about the efficacy of herbs used against T. gondii globally from 1988 to 2015, from PubMed, Google Scholar, ISI Web of Science, EBSCO, Science Direct, and Scopus. Forty-nine papers were included in the current systematic review reporting the evaluation of medicinal plants against T. gondii globally, both in vitro and in vivo. Sixty-one plants were evaluated. Most of the studies were carried out on Artemisia annua. The second highest number of studies were carried out on Glycyrrhiza glabra extracts. RH and ME49 were the predominant parasite strains used. Additionally, Swiss-Webster and BALB/c mice were the major animal models used. Alcoholic and aqueous extracts were used more than other types of extracts. Natural compounds mentioned here may be developed as novel and more effective therapeutic agents that improve the treatment of toxoplasmosis due to their lower side effects, higher availability, and better cultural acceptance compared with those of the chemical drugs that are currently being used.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".