Hepatoprotective Role of Propolis Extract to Prevent Hepatotoxic Effects of ATT in patients with Tuberculosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The main purpose of this study is to evaluate the hepatoprotective effects of propolis in hepatocytes injury caused by ATT due to isoniazid and rifampicin. Methods: Healthy albino rats of with average weight of 200-250g were under this study. These rats dividing into main four groups, A group is taken a control group and then further into the group B, group C, and group D as group for experiments. The control group had 15 rats with measured weight, they were given distilled water. Group B had 15 rats, they were given with standard dose of rifampicin and isoniazid. Group c had 15 rats, they were also given with standard dose of rifampicin and isoniazid. Group D had 15 rats, they were given with standard dose of rifampicin and isoniazid and also extract of the propolis we prepared. Results: Serum ALT in the experimental group B with group C, group D were also found to be of statistically significant with p-value < 0.001. ALT serum level observed high in group B. Multiple comparison between groups revealed that group B with a significantly increase in the serum enzyme AST level in comparison to group A, group C and group D with p-value <0.001. Conclusion: This study showed that ethanolic extract of propolis prevents isoniazid and rifampicin induced hepatotoxicity in the albino rats. Key words; Propolis, Anti-tuberculosis treatment, Hepato-toxicity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".