Article in Biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Wanna ShenState Key Laboratory of Tree Genetics and Breeding, Institute of Ecological Conservation and Restoration, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, China.ORCID 0009-0008-4968-960X
Long PanState Key Laboratory of Tree Genetics and Breeding, Institute of Ecological Conservation and Restoration, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, China.
Yuchen FuState Key Laboratory of Tree Genetics and Breeding, Institute of Ecological Conservation and Restoration, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, China.
Yutian SuoState Key Laboratory of Tree Genetics and Breeding, Institute of Ecological Conservation and Restoration, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, China.
Yinan ZhangState Key Laboratory of Tree Genetics and Breeding, Institute of Ecological Conservation and Restoration, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, China.
Huixiang LiuShandong Research Center for Forestry Harmful Biological Control Engineering and Technology, College of Plant Protection, Shandong Agricultural University, Taian 271002, China.
Xiaohua SuState Key Laboratory of Tree Genetics and Breeding, Research Institute of Forestry, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, China.
Jiaping ZhaoState Key Laboratory of Tree Genetics and Breeding, Institute of Ecological Conservation and Restoration, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, China.ORCID 0000-0002-2054-6989
Chinese Academy of Forestry · CNShandong Agricultural University · CN
Funding
Central Public-interest Scientific Institution Basal Research Fund of State Key Laboratory of Tree Genetics and Breeding CAFYBB2020ZY001-2National Natural Science Foundation of China 32171776
6 · The paper itself
Abstract
A key step in the study of tree pathology is the identification of an appropriate method for inoculating pathogens of diseases in branches and trunks. Pathogens of diseases in branches and trunks are commonly inoculated through punching, burning, and toothpick inoculation. However, there is a lack of comparative analyses of the inoculation outcomes of these three methods. In this work, six-year-old
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.
Comparative Study on the Effectiveness of Three Inoculation Methods for · full record | OpenQuestion