Dose-dependent anti-hyperglycemic & anti-dyslipidemic potential of aqueous leaves extract of Typha elephantina in-vivo and in-vitro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diabetes mellitus is among the fundamental causes of illness and millions of deaths around the globe are directly attributed to it each year. Current antidiabetic medications often lack sustained glycemic control and carry significant risks of side effects. As a result, the use of plant-based treatments has gained popularity. In this experimental study, we evaluated the aqueous extracts (LQE) of Typha elephantina (also known as Elephant grass) leaves collected from freshwater marshes, for their potential anti-hyperglycemic and anti-hyperlipidemic antioxidant effects in healthy streptozotocin caused diabetic-mice. We employed glucose adsorption tests at different glucose levels and glucose diffusion tests to assess the in-vitro antidiabetic action of plant extract. For the in-vivo trail, we measured fasting blood glucose (FBG), glucose tolerance (GTT), as well as long-term anti-diabetic, anti-hyperlipidemic, and antioxidant activities. Our results from the glucose diffusion test indicated that the extract was highly effective at both low glucose concentrations (5 mmol L) and high glucose concentrations (100 mmol L). However, the glucose-diffusion ability reached its peaked at an excessively high dosage of the aqueous extract, suggesting a dose-related effect. Similarly, we observed that high doses of TEL.AQ extracts (400 mg/kg body weight) significantly reduced blood glucose levels in healthy mice during the glucose tolerance test (GTT) at 3 hours and fasting blood glucose studies (FBG) at 6 hours. Furthermore, the high-dose TEL.AQ extract effectively reduced liver-related serum markers and blood-glucose concentration (BGC) in severely chronic diabetic rats. The extract dosage also influenced lipid profile, conjugate and unconjugated bilirubin levels, cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL, and total bilirubin levels. Additionally, after administering a high extract dose, we observed considerable improvement in the liver homogenate markers CAT, POD, and SOD. In contrast, the extract at a low dosage (100 mg/kg), showed minimal, while a moderate dose (200 mg/kg), yielded promising results.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".