ArticleChinese medicine2023
A quality-comprehensive-evaluation-index-based model for evaluating traditional Chinese medicine quality.
Article in Chinese medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimization of Xiaoer Lingyin granule formulation using single-factor and response surface methodology.RSC advances · 2026Article
- Identification of lotus seeds stored over different periods by analyzing the changes in the chemical structure of starch.Journal of pharmaceutical analysis · 2026Article
- Comprehensive evaluation of the development of traditional Chinese medicine industry in Shaanxi province based on PMC index model.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Digital intelligence technology: new quality productivity for precision traditional Chinese medicine.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Effects of post-harvest ' rubbing-sweating ' drying treatment on the accumulation of bioactive compounds inFrontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEvaluating traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) quality is a powerful method to ensure TCM safety. TCM quality evaluation methods primarily include characterization evaluations and separate physical, chemical, and biological evaluations; however, these approaches have limitations. Nevertheless, researchers have recently integrated evaluation methods, advancing the emergence of frontier research tools, such as TCM quality markers (Q-markers). These studies are largely based on biological activity, with weak correlations between the quality indices and quality. However, these TCM quality indices focus on the individual efficacies of single bioactive components and, therefore, do not accurately represent the TCM quality. Conventionally, provenance, place of origin, preparation, and processing are the key attributes influencing TCM quality. In this study, we identified TCM-attribute-based quality indices and developed a comprehensive multiweighted multi-index-based TCM quality composite evaluation index (QCEI) for grading TCM quality.
methodsThe area of origin, number of growth years, and harvest season are considered key TCM quality attributes. In this study, licorice was the model TCM to investigate the quality indicators associated with key factors that are considered to influence TCM quality using multivariate statistical analysis, identify biological-evaluation-based pharmacological activity indicators by network pharmacology, establish real quality indicators, and develop a QCEI-based model for grading TCM quality using a machine learning model. Finally, to determine whether different licorice quality grades differently reduced the inflammatory response, TNF-α and IL-1β levels were measured in RAW 264.7 cells using ELISA analysis.
resultsThe 21 quality indices are suitable candidates for establishing a method for grading licorice quality. A computer model was established using SVM analysis to predict the TCM quality composite evaluation index (TCM QCEI). The tenfold cross validation accuracy was 90.26%. Licorice diameter; total flavonoid content; similarities of HPLC chromatogram fingerprints recorded at 250 and 330 nm; contents of liquiritin apioside, liquiritin, glycyrrhizic acid, and liquiritigenin; and pharmacological activity quality index were identified as the key indices for constructing the model for evaluating licorice quality and determining which model contribution rates were proportionally weighted in the model. The ELISA analysis results preliminarily suggest that the inflammatory responses were likely better reduced by premium-grade than by first-class licorice.
conclusionsIn the present study, traditional sensory characterization and modern standardized processes based on production process and pharmacological efficacy evaluation were integrated for use in the assessment of TCM quality. Multidimensional quality evaluation indices were integrated with a machine learning model to identify key quality indices and their corresponding weight coefficients, to establish a multiweighted multi-index and comprehensive quality index, and to construct a QCEI-based model for grading TCM quality. Our results could facilitate and guide the development of TCM quality control research.
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.