Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27378926›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2016

Toxic Constituents Index: A Toxicity-Calibrated Quantitative Evaluation Approach for the Precise Toxicity Prediction of the Hypertoxic Phytomedicine-Aconite.

Ding-Kun Zhang, Rui-Sheng Li, Xue Han, Chun-Yu Li, Zhi-Hao Zhao, Hai-Zhu Zhang, Ming Yang, Jia-Bo Wang, Xiao-He Xiao

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. The protective effect and antitumor activity ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Limitation standard of toxic aconitines inActa pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2020
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Simultaneous Evaluation of the Influence ofEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2018
    Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ding-Kun ZhangChina Military Institute of Chinese Medicine, 302 Military HospitalBeijing, China; College of Pharmacy, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese MedicineChengdu, China.
Rui-Sheng LiResearch Center for Clinical and Translational Medicine, 302 Hospital of People's Liberation Army Beijing, China.
Xue HanChina Military Institute of Chinese Medicine, 302 Military HospitalBeijing, China; College of Pharmacy, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese MedicineChengdu, China.
Chun-Yu LiChina Military Institute of Chinese Medicine, 302 Military Hospital Beijing, China.
Zhi-Hao ZhaoChina Military Institute of Chinese Medicine, 302 Military Hospital Beijing, China.
Hai-Zhu ZhangChina Military Institute of Chinese Medicine, 302 Military HospitalBeijing, China; College of Pharmacy, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese MedicineChengdu, China.
Ming YangKey Laboratory of Modern Preparation of Traditional Chinese Medicine, JiangXi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Nanchang China.
Jia-Bo WangCollege of Pharmacy, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Chengdu, China.
Xiao-He XiaoIntegrative Medical Center, 302 Military Hospital Beijing, China.
Chinese People's Liberation Army · CN302 Military Hospital of China · CNChengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CNJiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Complex chemical composition is an important reason for restricting herbal quality evaluation. Despite the multi-components determination method significantly promoted the progress of herbal quality evaluation, however, which mainly concerned the total amount of multiple components and ignored the activity variation between each one, and did not accurately reflect the biological activity of botanical medicines. In this manuscript, we proposed a toxicity calibrated contents determination method for hyper toxic aconite, called toxic constituents index (TCI). Initially, we determined the minimum lethal dose value of mesaconitine (MA), aconitine (AC), and hypaconitine (HA), and established the equation TCI = 100 × (0.3387 ×X MA + 0.4778 ×X AC + 0.1835 ×X HA). Then, 10 batches of aconite were selected and their evaluation results of toxic potency (TP), diester diterpenoid alkaloids (DDAs), and TCI were compared. Linear regression analysis result suggested that the relevance between TCI and TP was the highest and the correlation coefficient R was 0.954. Prediction error values study also indicated that the evaluation results of TCI was highly consistent with that of TP. Moreover, TCI and DDAs were both applied to evaluate 14 batches of aconite samples oriented different origins; from the different evaluation results, we found when the proportion of HA was reached 25% in DDAs, the pharmacopeia method could generate false positive results. All these results testified the accuracy and universality of TCI method. We believe that this study method is rather accurate, simple, and easy operation and it will be of great utility in studies of other foods and herbs.

Indexed as

aconitemulti-components determinationtoxic constituents indextoxicity calibration coefficienttoxicity predictiontoxic potency

Identifiers

PMID27378926
PMCPMC4911369
OpenAlexW2420334287

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.