Article in MycoKeys, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.
International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology · 2025
Article
4 · The record
Corrections and comments
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
11 authors.
Hai-Yan ZhuState Key Laboratory of Mycology, Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5547-4922
Yu-Hua WeiState Key Laboratory of Mycology, Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5789-5683
Liang-Chen GuoState Key Laboratory of Mycology, Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9404-4449
Zhang WenState Key Laboratory of Mycology, Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing China.
Shuang HuState Key Laboratory of Mycology, Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7285-7626
Feng-Yan BaiState Key Laboratory of Mycology, Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9823-6430
Pei-Jie HanState Key Laboratory of Mycology, Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8342-739X
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
6 · The paper itself
Abstract
A study on yeast species from the genera
Indexed as
Arthroconidial yeastGeotrichumMagnusiomycestwo new species
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.
Two new arthroconidial yeast species from bark and pit mud in China. · full record | OpenQuestion