Antibacterial And Antifungal Properties Of Bougainvillea Spectabilis Andtecoma Stans Plant Extracts Against Human Pathogens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of various herbal remedies and preparations are described throughout human history representing the origin of modern medicine. Herbal medicine is also called botanical medicine or phyto-medicine, and is defined as the use of plant to prevent or treat illness. Medicinal plants constitute an important component of flora and are widely distributed all over India. The pharmacological evaluation of substances from plants is an established method for the identification of lead compounds towards the development of novel and safe medicinal agents. The importance of medicinal plants and traditional health systems in solving the health care problems of the world is gaining increasing attention. As this renewed interest in medicinal plants continues to surge, research on these botanical treasures is experiencing an explosive growth on the global stage. However, this zealous pursuit of knowledge sometimes exacts a toll on the very ecosystems and indigenous populations in the countries of origin.This study was conducted to determine the antimicrobial and antifungal activity of Bougainvillea spectabilis and Tecoma stans grown wildely in Jamnagar geographical location. This study concluded that both plants show positive outcome towards antibacterial activity while negative outcome at antifungal activity. Both of these plants are having antibacterial compounds which can be extracted by methanol. The study on antimicrobial values ofBougainvillea spectabilisandTecoma stans, will help us, more effectively and efficiently manner for pharmacological purposes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".