MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390582159 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v10i1.1946

In vitro Anti-malarial Activity of Rhizome Extracts of Curcuma species

2023· article· en· W4390582159 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Prasanthi Donipati, Dr.S. Harasreeramulu, Prasanna Jyothi Donipati

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDiverse Scientific Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurcumaMalariaRhizomeBiologyParasitemiaPlasmodium vivaxTraditional medicineChloroquineIn vitroPlasmodium falciparumPharmacologyImmunologyBotanyMedicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anopheles mosquitoes carry the deadly parasite illness malaria, which kills thousands of people annually in many tropical and subtropical areas. This study set out to evaluate the effectiveness of chloroquine in treating Curcuma species malaria caused by Plasmodium vivax. In this investigation, the malaria pathogen Plasmodium vivax was employed. In an incubator with 5% CO2 and 37°C, parasitemia was cultivated in RPMI 1640 culture media supplemented with 10% human serum and 2µg/ml of gentamycin. In order to evaluate plant extracts' ability to combat malaria, we employed the susceptibility micro assay method. Significant parasitaemia inhibitions were demonstrated by ethanolic extracts of Curcuma longa, Hedychium coronarium, and Curcuma caesia against blood stage chloroquine-resistant P. vivax, with low cytotoxic effects to parasitaemia cells in vitro. These inhibitions ranged from 5.8-75.6%, 2.2-29%, and 2-29.8%. The growth of P. vivax, which is resistant to chloroquine, was effectively inhibited by extracts derived from six different plant species. The results supported the fractionation of these plants using a bioassay to identify strong anti-malarial chemicals or to create standardised extracts that could strengthen the anti-malarial impact in vitro

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.500
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.044 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicDiverse Scientific Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207