ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2024
Characterization and comparation of toxicity between natural realgar and artificially optimized realgar.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Renaissance of Traditional Mineral Drugs in Cancer: Advanced Delivery Strategies and Bioengineering Approaches.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- Bioaccessibility and Health Risk Assessment of Arsenic in Realgar-Containing Traditional Chinese Medicines.Biological trace element research · 2026Article
- The outcast of medicine: metals in medicine--from traditional mineral medicine to metallodrugs.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Realgar possesses important medical properties. This article aims to evaluate realgar and emerging artificially optimized realgar to ensure safe clinical use. Methods: Multiple techniques were employed to test natural realgar and artificially optimized realgar. Soluble arsenic content in representative samples were measured. Natural realgar and artificially optimized realgar were administered to KM mice via gavage for 28 days, and the extent of liver and kidney tissue damage, arsenic accumulation and form of arsenic were measured. Results: Natural realgar and artificially optimized realgar can be distinguished by their physical properties or spectral signatures. ICP-MS and EPMA identified different contents of elements between two groups. In simulated gastric and intestinal fluids, only As (III) and As (V) were detected. Toxicity experiments Conclusion: The differences between natural realgar and artificially optimized realgar were successfully distinguished through several methods.
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.