MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7126032929 · doi:10.18280/ijdne.201221

Antimicrobial Activity of Alcoholic German Chamomile Extract Against Oral Pathogens Including Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Candida albicans

2025· article· W7126032929 on OpenAlex
Fadia Abd Almuhsin Al-Khayat, Zainab Abdul Jabbar Al-Dhaher, Zainab G. Aljassim, Sahar Hashim Al-Hindawi, Dhuha H. Almarsomy, Rasha Shaker

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicHops Chemistry and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Baghdad
KeywordsCandida albicansAntimicrobialLactobacillus acidophilusLactobacillusStreptococcusStreptococcus mutans

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resistance to common antiseptics has driven interest in plant-based alternatives to address recurring oral infections caused by bacterial and fungal pathogens.The antimicrobial activity of alcoholic German Chamomile extract was evaluated using agar well diffusion and minimum inhibitory concentration, minimum bactericidal concentration, and minimum fungicidal concentration (MIC/MBC/MFC) assays against ten isolates each of Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Candida albicans.GC-MS analysis identified key phytochemicals such as -bisabolol, apigenin, and chamazulene in the ethanolic extract.The antimicrobial potential was tested by the agar well diffusion method using 10, 20, 30, and 40% concentrations with 0.2% chlorhexidine as a positive control.The extract inhibited all of the tested microbes in a concentration-dependent manner and was most effective against C. albicans, followed by S. mutans and L. acidophilus.One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) confirmed significant differences (p < 0.05) at extract concentrations of 20-40% among microbial responses.Inhibition zones were comparable to those of chlorhexidine, confirming the extract's potency.MIC and MFC values for C. albicans were as low as 2.5% and 1.25%, respectively.In contrast, S. mutans showed moderate sensitivity to the extract, with MIC and MFC values of 5.0% and 2.5%, respectively.L. acidophilus, however, required higher concentrations to achieve full inhibitory and fungal effects, with MIC and MFC values of 10.0% and 5%, respectively, suggesting a higher relative resistance of this bacterial species to the extract.The extract showed pronounced antifungal and antibacterial effects at specific concentrations, with efficacy comparable to chlorhexidine.These effects are attributed to the presence of multiple bioactive compounds.Accordingly, Chamomile extract represents a promising natural candidate for the development of safe and effective alternatives to conventional chemical antiseptics in oral care, although further clinical and pharmaceutical investigations are required to validate its safety and therapeutic potential.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.350 · 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