MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800887830 · doi:10.3390/biomedicines6020048

Neuroprotective and Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Rhus coriaria Extract in a Mouse Model of Ischemic Optic Neuropathy

2018· article· en· W2800887830 on OpenAlexaff
Saba Khalilpour, Ghazaleh Behnammanesh, Fouad Saleih R. Al‐Suede, Mohammed Oday Ezzat, Jayadhisan Muniandy, Yasser Tabana, Mohamed B. Khadeer Ahamed, Ali Tamayol, Amin Malik Shah Abdul Majid, Enrico Sangiovanni, Mario Dell’Agli

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedicines · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMedicinal Plant Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroprotectionMedicinePharmacologyOptic neuropathyIn vivoIschemiaABTSAnterior ischemic optic neuropathyOptic nerveAntioxidantDPPHChemistryOphthalmologyBiochemistryBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modulating oxidative stresses and inflammation can potentially prevent or alleviate the pathological conditions of diseases associated with the nervous system, including ischemic optic neuropathy. In this study we evaluated the anti-neuroinflammatory and neuroprotective activities of Rhus coriaria (R. coriaria) extract in vivo. The half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) for DPPH, ABTS and β–carotene were 6.79 ± 0.009 µg/mL, 10.94 ± 0.09 µg/mL, and 6.25 ± 0.06 µg/mL, respectively. Retinal ischemia was induced by optic nerve crush injury in albino Balb/c mice. The anti-inflammatory activity of ethanolic extract of R. coriaria (ERC) and linoleic acid (LA) on ocular ischemia was monitored using Fluorescence Molecular Tomography (FMT). Following optic nerve crush injury, the mice treated with 400 mg/kg of ERC and LA exhibited an 84.87% and 86.71% reduction of fluorescent signal (cathepsin activity) respectively. The results of this study provide strong scientific evidence for the neuroprotective activity of the ERC, identifying LA as one of the main components responsible for the effect. ERC may be useful and worthy of further development for its adjunctive utilization in the treatment of optic neuropathy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations27
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomedicinesSame topicMedicinal Plant ResearchFrench-language works237,207