ArticleScientific reports2025
Artificial intelligence-assisted optimization of Eichhornia crassipes extracts and evaluation of their biological activities.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of phenolic profile and multi-biological activities of Lepista glaucocana extracts optimized by ANN-GA and RSM models.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the phenolic profile and biological activities of Boletus speciosus extracts optimized with response surface methodology and artificial neural networks-genetic algorithm.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this research, the extraction conditions for Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms were optimized using Response Surface Methodology (RSM) and Artificial Neural Network-Genetic Algorithm (ANN-GA) techniques to enhance the biological efficacy of the extracts. The optimization focused on three key variables: extraction temperature, duration, and the ethanol-to-water solvent ratio. Through the ANN-GA model, the optimal parameters were identified as 56.85 °C for temperature, 7.62 h for extraction time, and 23.93% for the ethanol/water proportion. The obtained extracts showed statistically significantly higher values compared to RSM in terms of antioxidant capacity (FRAP: 152.89 mg TE/g; DPPH: 121.48 mg TE/g), total phenolic content (TPC: 209.47 mg GAE/g) and flavonoid content (TFC: 263.86 mg QE/g). In addition, ANN-GA extract exhibited high anticholinesterase activity with lower IC₅₀ values against acetylcholinesterase (AChE: 61.69 µg/mL) and butyrylcholinesterase (BChE: 81.40 µg/mL) enzymes. In in vitro tests on A549 cell line, its antiproliferative effect increased significantly in a dose-dependent manner and significant decreases in cell viability were observed especially at high concentrations. LC-MS/MS analyses revealed that pharmacologically important phenolic compounds such as quercetin (10295.26 mg/kg), kaempferol (8656.31 mg/kg) and naringenin (5364.56 mg/kg) were present in high concentrations in the optimized extracts. In conclusion, ANN-GA based extraction approach stands out as an effective method for obtaining phenolic compound rich and biologically effective extracts of E. crassipes. These findings indicate that this aquatic plant should be evaluated for its pharmaceutical, neuroprotective and anticancer potential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.