ArticleJournal of AOAC International2024
Variation in Botanical Reference Materials: Similarity of Actaea Racemosa Analyzed by Flow Injection Mass Spectrometry.
Article in Journal of AOAC International, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of predictive modeling tools for the identification of Ocimum spp. herbal products.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2025Article
- One-class modeling for verification of botanical identity: a review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBotanical reference materials (BRMs) generally account for the species, cultivar, and year and location of harvest that result in variability in the chemical composition that may lead to statistically significant differences using chemometric methods.
objectiveTo compare the chemical composition of five species of Actaea root BRMs, four herbal sources of A. racemosa root BRMs, and A. racemosa BRMS, and commercial roots and supplements using chemometric methods and selected pre-processing approaches.
methodSamples were analyzed by flow injection mass spectrometry (FIMS), principal component analysis (PCA), and factorial multivariate analysis of variance (mANOVA).
resultsStatistically significant (P = 0.05) compositional differences were found between three genera (Actaea, Panax, and Ginkgo), five species of Actaea (A. racemosa, A. cimicifuga, A. dahurica, A. pachypoda, and A. rubra) root BRMs, four herbal sources of A. racemosa root BRMs, and A. racemosa BRMS and commercial roots and supplements. The variability of 6% of the BRM variables was found to be quantitatively conserved and reduced the compositional differences between the four sources of root BRMs. Compositional overlap of A. racemosa and other Actaea BRMs was influenced by variation in technical repeats, pre-processing methods, selection of variables, and selection of confidence limits. Sensitivity ranged from 94 to 97% and specificity ranged from 21 to 89% for the pre-processing protocols tested.
conclusionsEnvironmental, genetic, and chemometric factors can influence discrimination between species and authentic botanical reference materials. HIGHLIGHTS: Frequency distribution plots derived from soft independent modeling of class analogy provide excellent means for understanding the impact of experimental factors.
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.