Cytotoxicity of Combination Doxorubicin and <i>Garcinia picrorrhiza</i> Fruit Extract on Fibroblast Cell
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Combining chemotherapeutic agents such as doxorubicin with herbal products or other compounds that can enhance cytotoxicity without side effects is required. Thus, we aimed to observe the cytotoxicity of doxorubicin and sesoot (Garcinia picrorrhiza) fruit ethanolic extract (GpKar) on human fibroblast cells, BJ. This study used a post-test-only control randomized group design with n=3 and a number group of 5. The method used in this research is cell number, and viability was measured with (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-5-(3-carboxymethoxyphenyl)-2-(4-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium assay. Treatments consisted of a combination of doxorubicin (0.02 μg/ml) and GpKar of 66.47 µg/ml (DES1), 132.94 µg/ml (DES2) and 265.89 μg/ml (DES3). The data were analyzed using the one-way ANOVA and Duncan post hoc tests. DES3 showed the lowest viability among treatments (89.32%). DES1 and DES2 showed high viability (>90%), 97.93%, and 95.08%, respectively. Thus, the combination of doxorubicin (0.02 μg/ml) and GpKar (66.47 µg/ml) was considered safe for further use in the following assay. In summary, the combination of doxorubicin and GpKar showed high viability on normal fibroblast cells.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".