Comparative efficacy of Aloe vera and Levofloxacin against Corynebacteriumpyogenes and Staphylococcus epidermidis isolated from camel wound.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aimed to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of pure Aloe vera, its ethanol extract, and the antibiotic Levofloxacin against Staphylococcus epidermidis and Corynebacterium pyogenes isolated from camel wounds. Seventy wound samples were collected from veterinary clinics and nomadic animals near Hyderabad and Tando Allah Yar. These samples were processed at the Department of Veterinary Pharmacology, SAU Tandojam, for isolation and identification of the organisms. Different concentrations of pure Aloe vera, its ethanol extract, and Levofloxacin were tested to record the MIC against the isolated organisms. The MIC was determined by observing the turbidity and translucency of the cultured medium. Out of 70 wound samples, 50 were positive, with 29 (58%) positive for Staphylococcus epidermidis and 21 (42%) for Corynebacterium pyogenes. Staphylococcus epidermidis growth was inhibited at 5µg/µl, 2.5µg/µl, and 0.31µg/µl of pure Aloe vera, its ethanol extract, and Levofloxacin, respectively. The mean susceptibility values were 8.22µg/µl for pure Aloe vera, 4.22µg/µl for ethanol extract, and 0.55µg/µl for Levofloxacin. Corynebacterium pyogenes growth was inhibited at 5µg/µl, 1.25µg/µl, and 0.15µg/µl of pure Aloe vera, its ethanol extract, and Levofloxacin, respectively. The mean MIC values were 7.77µg/µl for pure Aloe vera, 3.33µg/µl for ethanol extract, and 0.25µg/µl for Levofloxacin. results indicated that the ethanol extract of Aloe vera had better antibacterial activity than pure Aloe vera, supporting its traditional use as an alternative to antibiotics to reduce antibiotic resistance.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".