ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2025
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Coupled enhancement of sulfate-assisted anaerobic digestion for livestock wastewater treatment under antibiotic stress using sludge-derived biochar and zero-valent iron.Bioprocess and biosystems engineering · 2026Article
- Article
- Near-complete inhibition of rumen methanogenesis via microbial and enzymatic modulation using a low dose of Asparagopsis taxiformis combined with 3-nitrooxypropanol.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Endo-1,3-β-D-glucanase activity influences in vitro ruminal fermentation of diets varying in forage:concentrate.Journal of animal science · 2025Article
- Effects of a pelletized mash containing fresh Asparagopsis taxiformis 'brominata' and oil on the performance of Holstein dairy cows.PloS one · 2025Article
- Effects of Hitoegusa (Monostroma nitidum) Extracts on In Vitro Rumen Fermentation Profiles.Animal science journal = Nihon chikusan GakkaihoArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Methods: The experimental design consisted of a control group (CON) and test groups supplemented with 2% (Low), 5% (Mid), and 10% (High) of dried and freeze-dried treatment Results and discussion: The results showed that freeze-dried treatment had better potential to mitigate CH
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.