Characterization of phenolic compounds in tincture of edible<i>Nepeta nuda</i>: development of antimicrobial mouthwash
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The activity of edible Nepeta nuda L. (Lamiaceae) tincture and Listerine towards a selected group of oral pathogenic microorganisms (4 bacterial and 9 fungal strains) has been explored. Their potentials to inhibit the formation of biofilm and to diminish established biofilm have been compared. The amount of N. nuda tincture and swishing time necessary for reaching better or equivalent antimicrobial effect than that of Listerine have been predicted. Phenolic compounds in N. nuda tincture are determined by LC-DAD/ESI-MSn. Both Listerine and N. nuda tincture possess good antimicrobial potentials (MIC in the range of 0.8-15 μL per well) including inhibition of biofilms. Rosmarinic acid and verminoside are the most dominant phenolic compounds present in the N. nuda tincture. Based on in vitro results, we infer that it is more desirable to swish 20 mL of mouthwashes (Listerine and N. nuda tincture, 100 mg mL-1) for 30 s when dealing with selected microorganisms in general and for 60 s (N. nuda tincture) when dealing with bacterial biofilms.
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 | 0.001 | 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".