MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405123454 · doi:10.5376/mpr.2024.14.0016

Ethnobotanical Uses and Phytochemistry of <i>Eucommia ulmoides</i>: A Comprehensive Review

2024· review· en· W4405123454 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Honglin Wang, Degang Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicinal Plant Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytochemistry and Biological Activities
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGuizhou Academy of Agricultural Sciences
KeywordsEucommia ulmoidesEthnobotanyPhytochemistryTraditional medicineMedicinal plantsMedicineTraditional Chinese medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eucommia ulmoides, a widely used medicinal plant in traditional Chinese medicine, has a history of nearly two thousand years.This study systematically reviews the ethnobotanical uses and phytochemical properties of E. ulmoides, integrating historical knowledge with modern scientific research to explore its pharmacological activities and potential applications in modern medicine.The previous studies have demonstrated that E. ulmoides is rich in various bioactive compounds, including lignans, iridoids, flavonoids, and phenolic acids, which exhibit significant antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antihypertensive and neuroprotective effects.Additionally, it reveals the potential applications of E. ulmoides extracts in treating cardiovascular diseases, neurodegenerative disorders and cancer.By thoroughly analyzing the traditional uses and phytochemical components of E. ulmoides, this study provides a scientific foundation for its application in modern medicine and identifies future research directions, particularly in the areas of bioactive compound isolation, pharmacological mechanisms, and clinical applications.This study is expected to promote the sustainable use and development of E. ulmoides in both traditional and modern medical systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicinal Plant ResearchSame topicPhytochemistry and Biological ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207