The effects of Jowiseungcheongtang versus St. John's wort in the chronic mild stress model of depression in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of Jowiseungcheongtang compared with St. John's wort in the chronic mild stress(CMS) animal model of depression. Wistar rats were used for this study. The subjects were divided into 4 groups (Naive group: without CMS procedure, CMS-vehicle: water was administered during CMS procedure, CMS-Jowiseungcheongtang: Jowiseungcheongtang was administered after 5 weeks of CMS procedure, CMS-St. John's wort: St. John's wort was administered after 5 weeks of CMS procedure) During 9 weeks of CMS procedure, The change of the consumption of sucrose and the changes of weights were measured. After CMS procedure, Morris water maze test, open field test, elevated plus maze test and Western blotting were measured. The results were as follows. 1. The consumption of sucrose solution was significantly reversed in Jowiseungcheongtang group and relatively reversed in St. John's Wort group at 7 week. 2. In open field test, Neither Jowiseungcheongtang nor St. John's wort group showed statistically significant change of exploratory activity. In EPM test, St. John's Wort group showed significant decrease of total arm entry in comparison with Naive group. And Jowiseungcheongtang group was showed no significant change. 3. In Morris water maze test, St. John's Wort group showed significant increase in escape latency of the last Morris water maze trial. And in water maze probe test, there was no significant change. 4. St. John's Wort group showed relative increase in LP1 division of 5HT1A receptor compared with Naive group. Both St. John's Wort and Jowiseungcheongtang group showed relative increase in P2 division of GluRl compared with Naive group. These results suggest that Jowiseungcheongtang is as effective as St. John's Wort in the treatment of depression.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".