MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of Chemical Properties, Biological Activities and Ethnomedicinal uses of Cladostemon kirkii

2020· article· en· W3206357194 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alfred Maroyi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmacy and Nutrition Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed and Plant Biochemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhytochemicalTraditional medicineKaempferolMedicineChemical constituentsQuercetinBiologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cladostemon kirkii (Oliv.) Pax & Gilg is a shrub or a small tree widely used as traditional medicine in tropical Africa. This study is aimed at evaluating the chemical properties, biological activities and ethnomedicinal uses of C. kirkii. Results of the current study are based on data derived from several online databases such as Scopus, Google Scholar, PubMed and Science Direct, and pre-electronic sources such as scientific publications, books, dissertations, book chapters and journal articles. The articles published between 1960 and 2019 were used in this study. This study revealed that the bark, leaf, root and stem infusion and/or decoction of C. kirkii are mainly used as traditional medicines for boils, colds, gastro-intestinal problems, hypertension, ophthalmia, rheumatism, sexual dysfunction, abdominal pains, sexually transmitted infections, sores and wounds. Phytochemical compounds identified from the species include mearnsitrin, myricitrin, kaempferol-5-rhamnoside, kaempferin, kaempferol 3-gluco-7-rhamnoside, quercetin 3,7-dirhamnoside, quercetin 3-gluco-7-rhamnoside, choline, 3-hydroxyprolinebetaine and tetramethylammonium. Cladostemon kirkii should be subjected to detailed phytochemical, pharmacological and toxicological evaluations aimed at correlating its medicinal uses with its phytochemistry and pharmacological properties.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.245
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.085 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmacy and Nutrition SciencesSame topicSeed and Plant BiochemistryFrench-language works237,207