ArticleHeliyon2022
Classification of three types of ginseng samples based on ginsenoside profiles: appropriate data normalization improves the efficiency of multivariate analysis.
Article in Heliyon, 2022. 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.
- Review
- Biosynthesis of a Novel Ginsenoside with High Anticancer Activity by Recombinant UDP-Glycosyltransferase and Characterization of Its Biological Properties.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Ginseng and its functional components in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: therapeutic effects and multi-target pharmacological mechanisms.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Analysis of the main components of LSPN based on broadly targeted metabolomics technology.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- Phytochemistry, quality control and biosynthesis in ginseng research from 2021 to 2023: A state-of-the-art review concerning advances and challenges.Chinese herbal medicines · 2024Review
- Application of Monoclonal Antibodies against Naturally Occurring Bioactive Ingredients.Antibodies (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: It is well known that ginsenosides are the main active ingredients in ginseng, and they have also been important indexes for assessing the quality of ginseng. However, the absolute contents of ginsenosides in ginseng were shown to be varied with the origin, cultivated type, cultivated year and climate. It is a great challenge to distinguish the commercial types of ginsengs according to the content of one or several ginsenosides. Methods: The common commercial types of ginsengs are white ginseng (WG), red ginseng (RG), American ginseng (AG). To clearly illustrate the differences among WG, RG and AG at the ginsenosides level, we established a strategy for the detection and identification of ginsenosides based on an optimized LC-Q-Orbitrap MS/MS method coupled with an in-house database of ginsenosides. Before and after the normalization, the ginsenosides datasheet was analyzed and compared using several state-of-the-art multivariate statistical analysis methods. Results: Here, 81 ginsenosides were identified in different ginseng samples. The majority of the ginsenosides (59 in 81) were all shared by WG, RG and AG. When the shared ginsenosides datasheet was normalized by the level of ginsenoside Ro, our analysis strategy clearly divided the ginseng samples into three groups (i.e., WG, RG and AG groups). We found that the ginsenoside profiles in RG and WG were significantly different from those in AG. The potential markers and multivariate diagnostic models differentiating the three types of ginsengs were also indicated. Conclusion: Our novel methodology based on ginsenoside profiles is more robust than existing methods, and data normalization is required to improve the efficiency of multivariate statistical analysis.
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.