ReviewMini reviews in medicinal chemistry2026
Review in Mini reviews in medicinal chemistry, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the management of solid tumors, ionizing radiation is a critical therapeutic modality, particularly when surgical intervention is impractical due to patient-related factors, such as compromised health or elevated mortality risk. However, its non-selective action can cause serious side effects that negate the therapeutic benefits. Efforts have thus been made to identify pharmacological agents that can selectively protect normal tissues from exposure to ionizing radiation. Seven decades of study, however, have shown that the desired success has not been achieved in obtaining an ideal radioprotective agent. Moreover, even at optimal doses, the FDA-approved drug, amifostine (also known as WR-2721 [S-2- (3-aminopropyl-amino) ethyl phosphorothioic acid], exhibits significant toxicity. An ideal radioprotective agent can also be beneficial in environments where individuals are exposed to prolonged, low-dose radiation. Considering this, there is a pressing need to develop methods of shielding cells and patients from the deleterious effects of radiation, and a non-toxic radioprotective drug can be useful in both clinical and occupational contexts. Studies have shown that the fruits of Emblica officinalis and its cardinal phytochemicals, such as gallic acid, ellagic acid, quercetin, geraniin, corilagin, and kaempferol, have been demonstrated to mitigate radiationinduced side effects. Research has also demonstrated that fruits can reduce the severity of radiationinduced mucositis in head and neck cancer patients undergoing curative treatment. Currently, there are no clinically effective non-toxic medications that are beneficial in mitigating radiation-induced ill effects. In lieu of this, for the first time, this review compiles the positive effects of fruits, phytochemicals, and their byproducts, chyawanprash and triphala, on radiation-induced damage, the mechanisms by which these effects occur, and the gaps that must be filled in order for future research to help people and the agricultural and nutraceutical industries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40685719What 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.