MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2975190007 · doi:10.3390/biom9100551

Antidiabetic Potential of Medicinal Plants and Their Active Components

2019· review· en· W2975190007 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomolecules · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNatural Antidiabetic Agents Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
FundersInstituto de Salud Carlos IIIComisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y TecnológicaCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red-Fisiopatología de la Obesidad y Nutrición
KeywordsBlood sugarDiabetes mellitusMedicinal plantsMedicineTraditional medicineAction (physics)PharmacologyBiotechnologyToxicologyBiologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diabetes mellitus is one of the major health problems in the world, the incidence and associated mortality are increasing. Inadequate regulation of the blood sugar imposes serious consequences for health. Conventional antidiabetic drugs are effective, however, also with unavoidable side effects. On the other hand, medicinal plants may act as an alternative source of antidiabetic agents. Examples of medicinal plants with antidiabetic potential are described, with focuses on preclinical and clinical studies. The beneficial potential of each plant matrix is given by the combined and concerted action of their profile of biologically active compounds.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.268 · 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