Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40213685›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2025

One-class modeling for verification of botanical identity: a review.

James Harnly

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

1 author.

James HarnlyMethods and Applications Food Composition Lab, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, MD, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One-class modeling is a supervised multivariate botanical identification method based on principal component analysis (PCA) that constructs a model based only on the characteristics of the reference samples and uses the Q statistic as a combined metric. Test samples are judged to be similar (authentic) if their combined metric falls within the model limits or different (adulterated or contaminated) if the metric falls outside the model limits. This review initially considers three major factors affecting identification: the number of variables (univariate versus multivariate), the number of classes (one-class versus multi-class), and the type of analysis (quantitative versus qualitative). Multivariate analysis is commonly used for identification, providing a broader coverage of the identity specifications of the samples. With a combined metric, multivariate methods are analogous to univariate methods. One-class modeling and multi-class modeling employ different approaches for identification with one-class modeling being more flexible. While most methods to date have had a quantitative basis, qualitative methods are possible. This review focuses on multivariate, one-class modeling based on PCA. Examples are presented for the application of one-class modeling to identification of American ginseng (

Indexed as

authenticationmultivariate analysisone-class modelingPCAreview

Identifiers

PMID40213685
PMCPMC11983402

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.