MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W852645489

The effects of Bambusae Caulis and St. John's Wort in the chronic mild stress model of depression in rats

2004· article· en· W852645489 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sejin Park, Jong-Woo Kim, Hyun-Taek Kim, Sang-Eun Chi, Wonn-Ryoung Kim, Hwang Ui-Wan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oriental Neuropsychiatry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGABA and Rice Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpen fieldLocomotor activityTraditional medicineMathematicsMedicinePharmacologyInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective : This study was designed to assess the protective effects of Bambusae caulis and St. John's Wort on the animal model of depression, induced by chronic mild stress(CMS) Method : Male Wistar rats were used for this experiment. The subjects were divided into 4 groups ( 1. CMS-drugs: Bambusae caulis administered during CMS treatment, 2. CMS-drugs: St. John's Wort administered during CMS treatment, 3. CMS-vehicle: Water administered during CMS treatment, 4. normal control group without CMS treatment ). After 3 weeks of CMS treatment, they were executed open field test and weight, sucrose intake were measured. Result : 1. CMS Bambusae caulis group showed significant difference of locomotor activities and marginal difference of start latency in comparison with other groups in open field test. 2. There was no change of weights between CMS Bambusae caulis, St. John's Wort groups and CMS control group. 3. CMS St. John's Wort group showed upper level of sucrose intake than CMS Bambusae caulis group and CMS control group. Conclusion : These results suggest that Bambusae caulis may have protective antidepressant effects in CMS model rats. And these effects could be explained by the elevated locomotor activities in open field test.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Oriental NeuropsychiatrySame topicGABA and Rice ResearchFrench-language works237,207