Therapeutic Effects of Sansevieria Trifasciata Ointment in Callosities of Toes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently study was a double-blind clinical trial in terms of ointments with different contents and the variables such as sex, drug charges, occupation, age, number of lesions, patients, lesions location, time of manifestation, lesion size and methods of treatment and recovery time. In addition, total patients under studied were 100 people in dermatology clinic of Farshchian hospital of Hamadan in Iran that they were divided into two groups. The first group (A) contained of 68 individual who were divided into three groups which used sanseveria extract with different percentage of containing 5, 10, and 20%. Further, the second group (B) included 32 patients who used from other methods of treatment were divided into three groups. In one group12 patients have been treated by using salicylic acid, in the other groups 12 individuals used from electro cautery and 8 patients were used of the corn plasters method. In addition, 116 patients in this study were in the range of 7 to 57 years of age. In fact 100 of them have used the drug correctly while 16 patients were excluded due to wrong usage. Also the plant (Sansevieria Trifasciata) was prepared in Hamedan Research Center from plant by dried extracts method. Finally, the results were analyzed statistically using SPSS software. In conclusion, based on the results of significant impact on the treatment of corns, all patients (100%) in the first group have been treated, additionally all participants in the study were improved within 4 weeks such that the recovery time for the 5% ointment was 25 days, while for 10% and 20% ointment was 15 and 10 days respectively.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".