Safety Profile
Information not yet available for this ingredient profile.
Interactions
Information not yet available for this ingredient profile.
Evidence and Scientific Findings
Ingredient Overview
Ashoka (Saraca asoca) bark is a classical Ayurvedic herb used primarily for gynaecological conditions including dysmenorrhoea, menorrhagia, and uterine disorders. It contains catechins, tannins, and glycosides with uterotonic, oestrogenic, and anti-inflammatory properties. It is generally well tolerated at standard Ayurvedic doses. Due to its uterotonic activity it is contraindicated in pregnancy. Its oestrogenic activity means caution is warranted in hormone-sensitive conditions. Long-term high-dose use may affect liver function; periodic monitoring is advisable.
Biological and Chemical Classification
- Scientific Name
- Saraca asoca
Mechanism of Action
Information not yet available for this ingredient profile.
Clinical Evidence of Effectiveness
Information not yet available for this ingredient profile.
Pharmacokinetics
Information not yet available for this ingredient profile.
Recommended Dosage
Information not yet available for this ingredient profile.
SETI — Scientific Evidence Transparency Index
Executive Summary — Ingredient Assessment
- 10 studies reviewed
- 0 high-quality studies (meta-analysis or RCT)
- Main clinical benefit observed: Botanical
- Evidence consistency: High consistency across studies (100%)
- No significant safety signals identified in the reviewed literature.
The available scientific evidence for Ashoka Bark indicates notable safety signals that warrant caution. Use should be considered carefully and monitored, particularly in sensitive populations or alongside other medications.
Total SETI Score
High risk| Evidence quality | 10/40 |
| Evidence consistency | 20/20 |
| Safety signals | 0/20 |
| Study recency | 10/10 |
| Evidence transparency | 10/10 |
Evidence Summary
- 10 studies reviewed
- 0 high-quality studies (meta-analysis or systematic review)
- 0 studies identified benefits or no safety concern (GREEN)
- 10 studies reported limited or advisory safety evidence (YELLOW)
Evidence Policy
Only peer-reviewed scientific literature indexed in PubMed or comparable databases is included in this evaluation. Commercial websites, blogs, and marketing materials are excluded. All references include direct traceable links to source documents.
Last updated: 06 ივნ 2026, 12:02
Evidence Distribution
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWGreen-Synthesized rGO-CeO(2) Nanocomposites for Enhanced Visible-Light Photodegradation of Eosin Y. ↗Kuruthukulangara N et al.. Green-Synthesized rGO-CeO(2) Nanocomposites for Enhanced Visible-Light Photodegradation of Eosin Y.. Chem Asian J. 2026. PMID:42092243.PMID 42092243 ↗Journal Chem Asian JYear 2026Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42092243/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWDose-dependent phytotoxic effects of biosynthesized ZnO nanoparticles from Saraca asoca on rice seedlings: oxidative stress and growth inhibition. ↗Sharma R et al.. Dose-dependent phytotoxic effects of biosynthesized ZnO nanoparticles from Saraca asoca on rice seedlings: oxidative stress and growth inhibition.. Physiol Mol Biol Plants. 2026. PMID:41743276.PMID 41743276 ↗Journal Physiol Mol Biol PlantsYear 2026Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41743276/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWDesign and Application of a Capsule-like Zn-Cu-Based Catalyst for the Reduction of 4-Nitrophenol and Degradation of Methylene Blue Dye: A Green and… ↗Yadav K et al.. Design and Application of a Capsule-like Zn-Cu-Based Catalyst for the Reduction of 4-Nitrophenol and Degradation of Methylene Blue Dye: A Green and Multifunctional Approach.. Langmuir. 2025. PMID:41214848.PMID 41214848 ↗Journal LangmuirYear 2025Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41214848/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWGenetic diversity and population structure of the vulnerable medicinal tree Saraca asoca in the Western Ghats India. ↗Sumangala RC et al.. Genetic diversity and population structure of the vulnerable medicinal tree Saraca asoca in the Western Ghats India.. Sci Rep. 2025. PMID:41173934.PMID 41173934 ↗Journal Sci RepYear 2025Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41173934/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWPharmacodynamic evaluation of ash-zinc oxide nanoparticles: synergistic gel formulation for wound healing and anti-inflammatory applications. ↗Jain A et al.. Pharmacodynamic evaluation of ash-zinc oxide nanoparticles: synergistic gel formulation for wound healing and anti-inflammatory applications.. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2025. PMID:40856137.PMID 40856137 ↗Journal Drug Dev Ind PharmYear 2025Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40856137/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWTranscriptome sequencing on different ages of Saraca asoca bark: Insights from tannin biosynthetic pathways and EST-SSR marker design. ↗Arathi S et al.. Transcriptome sequencing on different ages of Saraca asoca bark: Insights from tannin biosynthetic pathways and EST-SSR marker design.. Fitoterapia. 2025. PMID:40023231.PMID 40023231 ↗Journal FitoterapiaYear 2025Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40023231/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWEvaluation of growth, nutrient utilization, and metabolic function in rohu, Labeo rohita (Hamilton), fed diets incorporated with fermented Saraca asoca leaf meal. ↗Talukdar S et al.. Evaluation of growth, nutrient utilization, and metabolic function in rohu, Labeo rohita (Hamilton), fed diets incorporated with fermented Saraca asoca leaf meal.. Fish Physiol Biochem. 2025. PMID:39757307.PMID 39757307 ↗Journal Fish Physiol BiochemYear 2025Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39757307/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWAromatase inhibitors identified from Saraca asoca to treat infertility in women with polycystic ovary syndrome via in silico and inu00a0vivo studies. ↗Himaja K et al.. Aromatase inhibitors identified from Saraca asoca to treat infertility in women with polycystic ovary syndrome via in silico and inu00a0vivo studies.. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2025. PMID:38315510.PMID 38315510 ↗Journal J Biomol Struct DynYear 2025Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38315510/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWInvestigating potent cardioprotective compounds as ACE inhibitors in Saraca asoca. ↗Prasad S et al.. Investigating potent cardioprotective compounds as ACE inhibitors in Saraca asoca.. Toxicol Rep. 2024. PMID:39309635.PMID 39309635 ↗Journal Toxicol RepYear 2024Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39309635/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWPhytochemical-Based Study of Ethanolic Extract of Saraca asoca in Letrozole-Induced Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome in Female Adult Rats. ↗Bu N et al.. Phytochemical-Based Study of Ethanolic Extract of Saraca asoca in Letrozole-Induced Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome in Female Adult Rats.. ACS Omega. 2023. PMID:38024692.PMID 38024692 ↗Journal ACS OmegaYear 2023Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38024692/
Score Transparency
0 of 10 approved references (score saturates at 10). More peer-reviewed studies = stronger evidence base.
Method: Q = number of approved references ÷ 10 (capped at 1.0)
Limited — mostly case reports or animal studies
Method: L = mean study-level weight across approved references. Level 1 (meta-analysis / systematic review) = 1.0; Level 2 (RCT) = 0.8; Level 3 (cohort/case-control) = 0.6; Level 4 (case report) = 0.4; Level 5 (animal / in-vitro) = 0.2.
Mixed or neutral — roughly equal benefit and risk signals
Method: D = (sum of risk-scored references − sum of benefit-scored references) ÷ total evidence score, then scaled from [−1, 1] to [0, 1]. 0.0 = pure benefit; 0.5 = neutral; 1.0 = pure risk.
One or more monitoring-level safety signals active
Method: S = 0.5 (neutral baseline) + sum of active signal severity deltas ÷ 10. Severity deltas: Critical = +2.0, High = +1.5, Moderate = +1.0, Low = +0.5. Capped at 1.0.
Final GIRI Score for Ashoka Bark. Risk level thresholds: Low 0–3.0 · Moderate 3.0–5.5 · High 5.5–7.5 · Critical 7.5–10.
Full methodology & data sources
The GIRI Score is computed entirely from structured data — no editorial scoring or subjective weighting is applied at any step.
- References: Only approved references are counted. Each reference is assigned an evidence level (L1–L5) and a direction (risk / neutral / benefit) by the reference manager or AI classifier.
- Safety Signals: Sourced from regulatory agencies (FDA, EMA, Health Canada, TGA, and others) and pharmacovigilance databases. Only active signals count toward the score.
- Formula version: GIRI Score v3.7.0 — Q × L × D × S × 10.
- Limitations: The score reflects published evidence and recorded signals as of the last update date. It is not a clinical risk assessment and should not replace advice from a qualified healthcare professional.
Risk Level Classification
Based on available regulatory signals and scientific evidence, this ingredient presents a moderate safety concern. Caution is advised, particularly at high doses or in sensitive populations.
0–3.0
3.0–5.5
5.5–7.5
7.5–10
The score pin shows exactly where this ingredient falls on the fixed risk scale.
What drove the Moderate classification for Ashoka Bark
A score of 3.5 places this ingredient in the Moderate band. Thresholds: Low 0–3.0 · Moderate 3.0–5.5 · High 5.5–7.5 · Critical 7.5–10.
0 approved references.
Limited — mostly case reports or animal studies (Level 4–5).
Neutral or mixed — benefit and risk signals roughly balanced.
No active signals — S component is at neutral baseline (0.5), contributing no extra risk weight.
No major regulatory restrictions or advisories recorded across monitored jurisdictions (FDA, EMA, Health Canada, TGA, and others).
How are the Low / Moderate / High / Critical thresholds defined?
The four risk levels are fixed score bands. A score is assigned to exactly one level based on where it falls:
| Level | Score | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| LOW | 0.0 – 2.9 | Sparse or predominantly beneficial evidence. No active safety alerts. |
| MODERATE | 3.0 – 5.4 | Mixed signals — some risk alongside benefit. Caution at high doses or in sensitive groups. |
| HIGH | 5.5 – 7.4 | Multiple studies or regulatory alerts documenting adverse effects. Professional oversight recommended. |
| CRITICAL | 7.5 – 10 | Regulatory restrictions in one or more major jurisdictions. Serious documented harm. Avoid without specialist supervision. |
Thresholds are fixed constants (GIRI_Score_Utils::LEVEL_THRESHOLDS). They do not change per ingredient and are never subject to editorial adjustment.