Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31130860›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2019

Qihui Wu, Chuipu Cai, Pengfei Guo, Meiling Chen, Xiaoqin Wu, Jingwei Zhou, Yunxia Luo, Yidan Zou, Ai-Lin Liu, Qi Wang and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. DenovoProfiling: A webserver forComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022
    Article
  10. Traditional Chinese Medicine Recognition Based on Target Detection.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Comprehensive assessment of side effects in COVID-19 drug pipeline from a network perspective.Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

12 authors.

Qihui WuInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Chuipu CaiInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Pengfei GuoInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Meiling ChenSchool of Basic Medical Sciences, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Xiaoqin WuLerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Jingwei ZhouInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Yunxia LuoInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Yidan ZouSchool of Basic Medical Sciences, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Ai-Lin LiuInstitute of Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Qi WangInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Zaoyuan KuangSchool of Basic Medical Sciences, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Jiansong FangInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUNDS AND

aimsRecently, a growing number of hepatotoxicity cases aroused by Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) have been reported, causing increasing concern. To date, the reported predictive models for drug induced liver injury show low prediction accuracy and there are still no related reports for hepatotoxicity evaluation of TCM systematically. Additionally, the mechanism of herb induced liver injury (HILI) still remains unknown. The aim of the study was to identify potential hepatotoxic ingredients in TCM and explore the molecular mechanism of TCM against HILI. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this study, we developed consensus models for HILI prediction by integrating the best single classifiers. The consensus model with best performance was applied to identify the potential hepatotoxic ingredients from the Traditional Chinese Medicine Systems Pharmacology database (TCMSP). Systems pharmacology analyses, including multiple network construction and KEGG pathway enrichment, were performed to further explore the hepatotoxicity mechanism of TCM.

results16 single classifiers were built by combining four machine learning methods with four different sets of fingerprints. After systematic evaluation, the best four single classifiers were selected, which achieved a Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) value of 0.702, 0.691, 0.659, and 0.717, respectively. To improve the predictive capacity of single models, consensus prediction method was used to integrate the best four single classifiers. Results showed that the consensus model C-3 (MCC = 0.78) outperformed the four single classifiers and other consensus models. Subsequently, 5,666 potential hepatotoxic compounds were identified by C-3 model. We integrated the top 10 hepatotoxic herbs and discussed the hepatotoxicity mechanism of TCM via systems pharmacology approach. Finally,

conclusionOverall, this study provides a high accurate approach to predict HILI and an

Indexed as

consensus modelhepatotoxicity mechanismherb induced liver injuryin silicotraditional chinese medicine

Identifiers

PMID31130860
PMCPMC6509242

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.