Phytochemical Analysis, Antioxidant, Analgesic, Anti-Inflammatory, Hemagglutinin and Hemolytic Activities of Chemically Characterized Extracts from Origanum grosii (L.) and Thymus pallidus (L.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Origanum grosii (L.) and Thymus pallidus (L.) are medicinal plants recognized for their uses in traditional medicine. In this context, the aim of this article is to highlight the results of a phytochemical analysis (HPLC), with particular emphasis on the antioxidant (DPPH, TAC, and FRAP), analgesic, anti-inflammatory, haemagglutinin-test-related, and hemolytic activities of the total extracts of these plants. Phytochemical analysis via HPLC revealed that licoflavone C (30%) is the main compound in Origanum grosii, while hesperidin (43%) is found in T. pallidus. Evaluation of the antioxidant capacity of Origanum grosii and Thymus pallidus using the DPPH, TAC, and FRAP methods revealed an IC50 of the order of 0.085 mg/mL and 0.146 mg/mL, an EC50 of the order of 0.167 mg/mL and 0.185 mg/mL, and a total antioxidant capacity of between 750 mg EQ/g and 900 mg EQ/g, respectively. Analgesic evaluations revealed writhes inhibition of the order of 97.83% for O. grosii and 90% for T. pallidus. In addition, both plant extracts showed limited hemolytic activity, not exceeding 30% at a concentration of 100 mg/mL. Evaluation of the anti-inflammatory potential showed edema inhibition of the order of 94% (800 mg/kg) for O. grosii and 86% (800 mg/kg) for T. pallidus. These results highlight the potential applications of these extracts in pharmacological research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".