Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we measured the effect of these antioxidants i.e. vitamins (C and E) and total antioxidants in lysed human whole blood using aqueous leaves extract of Azadirachta indica (10 mg/ml; stock solution).All these antioxidants in this medicinal plant were measured using NanoDrop method and also isolated the protein content using Tris HCl and ice cold acetone and determined through SDS PAGE.For these studies, capsules of antioxidants {Vitamin C (Celin); vitamin E (Evion); and total antioxidants, A to Z multivitamin) were used as standard.The results showed that Azadirachta indica along with serially diluted vitamin E markedly increased in total cellular content in the form of Vitamin E production as compared to antioxidant (Vitamin E capsule, Evion) control dissolved in phosphate buffered saline (PBS, pH 7.2).In addition, there is slightly enhancement in vitamin C production at higher doses as compared to antioxidant (vitamin C capsule, Celin) control whereas total antioxidant capsule (A to Z, multivitamin) showed no effect at all.Capsules of antioxidants (i.e.vitamins C, E and total antioxidants) used separately dissolved in PBS as standard and showed enhancement at higher doses in case of vitamin C and E but in case of antioxidant capsule at lower doses in lysed human whole blood.In addition, two bands of protein (45 and 60 kDa) are observed in aqueous leaves extract of Azadirachta indica.Over all, the studies claimed that aqueous leaves extract of Azadirachta indica showed more enhancement of vitamin E production and it provides a scientific data of particular importance for the local people using these plant products especially related to vitamin E production for a variety of body immunological disorders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.835 | 0.883 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".