ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Article in Frontiers in 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Methamphetamine (METH) abuse is linked to significant hepatic injury, driven by oxidative stress, inflammatory pathway activation, autophagic dysregulation, and apoptosis induction. This study explored the hepatoprotective and anti-inflammatory potential of the brown seaweed Methods: Extracts prepared using methanol, ethanol, hexane, and water were screened for antioxidant activity. The methanolic extract, selected for further investigation, was characterized by phytochemical analysis and GC-MS profiling. Molecular docking was performed to evaluate the interactions of the identified bioactive compounds with TNF-α and LC3B-II. The cytotoxicity and selectivity of the methanolic extract were assessed using HepG-2 hepatocellular carcinoma and WI-38 normal cells. Its hepatoprotective effects were further evaluated in vivo in METH-treated adult male Wistar rats using biochemical, Western blot, immunohistochemical, and histopathological analyses. Results: The methanolic extract showed the greatest antioxidant activity, achieving 57.16% ± 1.96% DPPH radical scavenging and 54.71% ± 0.84% ferric-reducing antioxidant power. Although these values were lower than those of ascorbic acid (97.23 ± 0.48%), the methanolic extract exhibited higher antioxidant potential than the other extracts. Secondary metabolites, including alkaloids, saponins, tannins, and total phenolic compounds, were detected in notable amounts. GC-MS analysis identified oleic acid, palmitic acid, linoleic acid, and arachidonic acid as the major constituents. The extract exhibited dose-dependent cytotoxicity against HepG-2 cells, with an IC50 of 77.14 ± 1.63 µg mL Discussion: Collectively, these findings suggest that
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.