Phytochemical Screening and In-Vitro Antioxidant Activities of Various Extracts of Helichrysum petiolare Hilliard & B.L. Burtt used for the Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phytochemical contents of the acetone, ethanol, and boiled and cold aqueous whole-plant extracts of Helichrysum petiolare were determined using standard phytochemical reaction methods. ABTS, DPPH, NO and TAC assays were used to evaluate their antioxidant properties. This study reported the highest total phenolic content (212,963 mg/g) in the boiled aqueous extract, while the ethanol had the highest flavonoid (172.393 mg/g) and proanthocyanidin contents (65.855 mg/g). Alkaloids, flavonols, and saponin were highest in the acetone extract, while the cold aqueous extract had the lowest phytochemical content. Among the extracts, the boiled aqueous extract had the highest DPPH•+ (IC50 0.02 mg/mL) and ABTS•+ (IC50 0.07) inhibition capacities, while the ethanol extract exhibited the highest NO• Inhibition (IC50 0.41 mg/mL) and TAC (IC50 0.19 mg/mL). These findings justify the use of H. petiolare in traditional medicine and further recommend the ethanol and boiled aqueous extracts of the plant as more effective extracts for medicinal treatment.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".