Effects of cinnamaldehyde on anti-respiratory syncytial virus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous reports found that cinnamaldehyde has effects on anti-respiratory syncytial virus (ARSV). However, their results are still contradictory. Therefore, this study will systematically address the effects of cinnamaldehyde on ARSV. METHODS: The following electronic bibliographic databases will be retrieved from their outset to the March 31, 2020: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Technology Periodical Database, China Biology Medicine, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. No language and publication time limitations will be exerted in this study. All relevant case-controlled studies or randomized controlled studies exploring the effects of cinnamaldehyde on ARSV will be included. Study quality of case-controlled studies will be assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and that of randomized controlled studies will be identified by Cochrane risk of bias tool. All data pooling and analysis will be performed using RevMan 5.3 software. RESULTS: This study will summarize the up-to-date high-quality evidence to synthesize outcome data on the effects of cinnamaldehyde on ARSV. CONCLUSION: Findings of this study may provide beneficial evidence for both clinicians and future studies regarding the effects of cinnamaldehyde on ARSV. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: INPLASY202040074.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".