ReviewMolecular aspects of medicine2023
Have safety and efficacy assessments of bioactives come of age?
Review in Molecular aspects of medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Food-Derived Natural Compounds as Molecular Targets in Cancer Prevention.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- From Ethnobotany to Pharmacology: A Comprehensive Review of Selected Asteraceae Species Highlighting Phytochemical Composition, Traditional Uses, and Diverse Pharmacological Activities.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A Framework for Developing Intake and Use Guidance for Dietary Supplement Bioactives.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Review
- From Genetic Engineering to Preclinical Safety: A Study on Recombinant Human Interferons.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Opportunities and challenges in using NIH's Dietary Supplement Label Database for research on non-nutrient ingredients: Use case for ingredients in honeybee products.PharmaNutrition · 2024Article
- Bioactive compounds for human and planetary health.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This article describes why the safety and efficacy assessment of non-nutrient bioactives for reducing chronic disease risk is so complicated, especially for dietary supplements and traditional medicines. Scientists, regulators, and the public have different and sometimes opposing perspectives about bioactives. Drug, food, and traditional medicine models used for bioactive safety assessment are based on different assumptions and use different processes. Efficacy assessment is seldom based on clinical trials of boactives' effects in reducing chronic disease risk. It usually consists of application of quality assurance measures and evaluation of label claims and commercial speech about ingredients or products to ensure conformity to regulations. Harmonization of safety and efficacy assessment on a global basis is difficult because of differences within and between regulatory systems. The recommendations provided may open the way for bioactives to play a larger health role in the future, fill gaps in data needed for crafting authoritative dietary guidance on intakes, and speed harmonization of global standards.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.