ArticleJournal of experimental pharmacology2026
Article in Journal of experimental pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The central role of oxidative stress in neuronal injury and the progression of neurological disorders underscores the need to identify multi-target agents capable of restoring redox homeostasis. This study evaluated the antioxidant and pharmacological potential of Methods: GC-MS was used to characterize the phytochemical composition of the ethyl acetate fraction of Results: GC-MS identified eugenyl acetate (43.08%), eugenol (18.86%), and β-caryophyllene (1.64%) as the predominant metabolites. The prioritized phytometabolites exhibited favorable predicted ADME-Tox profiles and notable binding energies for MAO-B (up to -8.4 kcal/mol) and 5-LOX (up to -6.8 kcal/mol), involving key interactions with HIS367 and HIS372 in MAO-B and GLN363, TYR435, and CYS172 in 5-LOX, comparable to the standard ligands. Although ascorbic acid exhibited greater radical-scavenging and ferric-reducing potencies than SEAF in the DPPH and FRAP assays, respectively, SEAF showed higher total antioxidant activity than ascorbic acid. In vivo, SEAF administration was relatively safe up to 2000 mg/kg and significantly increased cerebellar superoxide dismutase and catalase activities while reducing malondialdehyde levels in HgCl Conclusion:
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.