<i>Cedrus deodara: In Vivo</i> Investigation of Burn Wound Healing Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective . Cedrus deodara (Roxb. Ex Lamb.) G. Don possesses various biological activities, which have been documented in modern and traditional medicine. In this study, burn wound healing activity of the methanol extract of C. deodara wood was evaluated via a burn wound model in Wistar rats. Methods . The methanol extract of C. deodara was evaluated for the contents of phenolic compounds, flavonoids, and tannins. Also, its antioxidant activity was determined using the DPPH assay. Then, a topical ointment containing the methanol extract of C. deodara (10%) was used to evaluate the healing effects on a model of second‐degree thermal burn in 4 groups of 7 rats within 21 days. In this respect, average wound surface area, wound closure, and various histological features were examined. Results . Our findings revealed that the wounds treated with the methanol extract of C. deodara showed higher wound contraction (33.6, 87.1, and 93.4% on days 7, 14, and 21, respectively) compared with the positive control (27.6, 80.7, and 88.3% on days 7, 14, and 21, respectively) and the negative control (20.1, 77.9, and 80.2% on days 7, 14, and 21, respectively). According to the results from epitheliogenesis score, the number of inflammatory cells, neovascularization, and collagen density, good burn wound healing activity of the methanol extract of C. deodara was demonstrated. Conclusion . Using the methanol extract of C. deodara in an ointment formulation can be developed to prevent or reduce burn injury progression.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".