ReviewJournal of Alzheimer's disease reports
A study on comprehensive bibliometric analysis of natural medicines for Alzheimer's disease (1999-2025).
Review in Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Natural medicines have low toxicity, multi-target effects and long-term clinical use. They inhibit amyloid-β (Aβ) deposition, regulate tau phosphorylation, and exert anti-inflammatory and antioxidant activities, matching Alzheimer's disease (AD) complex pathogenesis. Supported by the World Health Organization, they are promising alternatives to current symptomatic AD drugs that cannot stop disease progression. Objective: AD poses a growing global neurodegenerative burden, but systematic bibliometric analysis of natural medicines against AD remains lacking. This study aimed to reveal research trends, core contributors, hotspots and mechanisms from 1999 to 2025. Methods: Literature data were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) database (1999-2025) using a combined subject term search strategy. VOSviewer 1.6.20 was used for collaborative network analysis (countries, institutions, authors) and keyword co-occurrence analysis; CiteSpace 6.3.R1 was applied for keyword burst detection. Results: Global publications on natural medicines against AD showed phased growth: slow growth (1999-2009), rapid growth (2011-2018), and explosive growth (2020-present). China led in publications; India had the strongest international collaboration. Top co-cited journals included Conclusions: China is a core contributor. Research has shifted to molecular mechanisms and clinical translation, with network pharmacology, molecular docking and gut-brain axis as frontiers. Future efforts require interdisciplinary cooperation and large-sample trials.
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.