Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41368179›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2025

Comprehensive safety evaluation of

Yotam Ronen, Coralie Ebert, Bat-Chen Tamim-Yecheskel, Shani Zev, Ophir Kantor, Hilla Ben-Hamo Arbel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
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

6 authors.

Yotam RonenMeNow Ltd., Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Coralie EbertMeNow Ltd., Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Bat-Chen Tamim-YecheskelMeNow Ltd., Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Shani ZevMeNow Ltd., Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Ophir KantorMeNow Ltd., Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Hilla Ben-Hamo ArbelMeNow Ltd., Ramat-Gan, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study evaluates the safety profiles of Methods: We employed natural language processing (NLP) to systematically review existing literature and utilized quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models to predict liver and reproductive toxicity at the molecular level. Special attention was given to withanolides, the bioactive compounds in Ashwagandha, due to conflicting safety information. Additionally, we reviewed case studies reporting liver toxicity, noting that many involved supplements containing both leaves and roots, complicating the identification of the toxicity source. Results: Our analysis indicated that Ashwagandha root exhibits a superior safety profile compared to non-root parts, particularly concerning liver and reproductive toxicity. When compared to a broad set of other herbal supplements, Ashwagandha root was found to have a better safety profile than most, making it a first-choice ingredient for safe and effective use in supplements. While non-root parts of Ashwagandha showed higher toxicity potential than the root, their safety profile was still comparable to other edible plants and herbal supplements. Conclusion: This study suggests that the root of

Indexed as

Ashwagandhameta-analysisQSARtoxicityWithania somnifera

Identifiers

PMID41368179
PMCPMC12682666

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.