A Study on Aphanamixis polystachya for evaluation of phytochemical and pharmacological properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study was conducted to detect possible chemicals (phytoconstituents), and investigate antioxidant, antimicrobial and thrombolytic activities of the extract of Aphanamixis polystachya (stem bark). Phytochemical screening was carried out using the standard test methods of different chemical group. For investigating the antioxidant activity, two complementary test methods namely DPPH free radical scavenging assay and total phenolic content determination were carried out. For the evaluation of in vitro antimicrobial activity, disc diffusion method, and to determine the thrombolytic activity, the method of Prasad et al., 2007 with minor modifications were used. The bark extracts were a rich source of phytochemicals. In DPPH free radical scavenging test, the Carbon tetra chloride soluble fraction showed the highest free radical scavenging activity with IC50 value 19.86µg/ml. while compared to that of the reference standards ascorbic acid. Aphanamixis polystachya was also found as a good source of total phenolic contents. Moreover, the extracts revealed broad spectrum antimicrobial activity at the concentration of 400 µg/disc. By comparing with the negative control the mean clot lysis % was significant (p value <0.0009). Therefore, further studies are suggested to determine the active compounds responsible for the biological activities of the plant extracts.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".