Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38223450›Full record

ReviewJournal of pharmaceutical analysis2023

Recent trends of machine learning applied to multi-source data of medicinal plants.

Yanying Zhang, Yuanzhong Wang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of pharmaceutical analysis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Microbiota and urinary tumor immunity: Mechanisms, therapeutic implications, and future perspectives.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Yanying ZhangMedicinal Plants Research Institute, Yunnan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Kunming, 650200, China.
Yuanzhong WangMedicinal Plants Research Institute, Yunnan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Kunming, 650200, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In traditional medicine and ethnomedicine, medicinal plants have long been recognized as the basis for materials in therapeutic applications worldwide. In particular, the remarkable curative effect of traditional Chinese medicine during corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has attracted extensive attention globally. Medicinal plants have, therefore, become increasingly popular among the public. However, with increasing demand for and profit with medicinal plants, commercial fraudulent events such as adulteration or counterfeits sometimes occur, which poses a serious threat to the clinical outcomes and interests of consumers. With rapid advances in artificial intelligence, machine learning can be used to mine information on various medicinal plants to establish an ideal resource database. We herein present a review that mainly introduces common machine learning algorithms and discusses their application in multi-source data analysis of medicinal plants. The combination of machine learning algorithms and multi-source data analysis facilitates a comprehensive analysis and aids in the effective evaluation of the quality of medicinal plants. The findings of this review provide new possibilities for promoting the development and utilization of medicinal plants.

Indexed as

ApplicationData fusionMachine learningMedicinal plantMulti-source data

Identifiers

PMID38223450
PMCPMC10785154

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.