MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621675626 · doi:10.5539/jas.v9n7p97

In vitro Assessment of the Antioxidant Effect of Cunila microcephala Benth Infusion (Poejo) on Erythrocytes from Individuals with HIV/AIDS

2017· article· en· W2621675626 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Roberta Cattaneo Horn, Natacha Cossettin Mori, Juliana Sorraila de Oliveira, Paulo Ricardo Moreira, Janaína Coser, Janice de Fátima Pavan Zanella, Diego Pascoal Golle, Gabriela Tassotti Gelatti, Rodrigo Fernando dos Santos Salazar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTea Polyphenols and Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTBARSAntioxidantProtein CarbonylationGlutathioneThiobarbituric acidIn vitroLipid peroxidationPharmacologyChemistryMedicineImmunologyBiochemistryEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the present study is to investigate in vitro antioxidant activity of Cunila microcephala Benth infusion (Poejo) in erythrocytes from individuals with HIV/AIDS. Erythrocytes were used from seventeen patients of both sexes, with HIV/AIDS, receiving antiretroviral therapy and the control group consisted of erythrocytes of HIV/AIDS free individuals belonging to both sexes. The erythrocytes were treated in vitro for an hour with infusions of Poejo at the following concentrations: 1, 5, 10, 25 and 50 g/L After treatment, the levels of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS), carbonylated proteins (CPs), and reduced glutathione (GSH) were measured. A reduction in lipoperoxidation and protein carbonylation was observed after treatment with poejo tea at the concentrations of 5, 10, 25 and 50g/L. In addition, a reduction of GSH at such concentrations was observed. Poejo infusion appears to perform an antioxidant activity in lipid oxidation and in the protein carbonylation found in individuals with HIV/AIDS.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicTea Polyphenols and EffectsFrench-language works237,207