Medicinal mushrooms with immunostimulating and antitumor properties (II)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mushrooms have been an integral part of diet and medicinal practices since ancient times. In ancient Chinese culture, they were valued for both their nutritional properties and medicinal benefits. The first book on remedies belonging to the Chinese civilization mentions the therapeutic effects of various species of mushrooms. In the last three decades, researchers from all over the world, especially from countries such as Japan, China, Korea, the USA and Canada, have conducted numerous studies that have confirmed the beneficial effects of mushrooms on human health. These studies have highlighted their immunological, antioxidant, anti-tumor, and anti-inflammatory properties. The discovery of penicillin in 1928, derived from the mold Penicillium notatum (a lower fungus), was a watershed moment in medical history, revolutionizing the treatment of bacterial infections and saving millions of lives. This discovery also opened doors for the synthesis of other exceptional drugs. Over the past three decades, interest in medicinal mushrooms and their therapeutic properties has grown significantly. These mushrooms have been studied for their potential in treating immunological conditions and cancer. Thus, medicinal mushrooms have become the subject of intensive research in the field of complementary medicine.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".