ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Understanding dosage effects of traditional Chinese medicine using network analysis.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) prescriptions are complex, multi-botanical drug systems in which dosage critically influences therapeutic efficacy. While network pharmacology is widely used to analyze TCM mechanisms, existing methods ignore the dosage of botanical drugs, a key limitation that may skew predictions. This study investigates how integrating dosage data alters network analysis outputs, addressing a fundamental gap in understanding TCM's dosage-dependent effects. Methods: Our analysis compared dosage-weighted and traditional non-dosage network approaches across 94 traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) prescriptions. We developed four custom indicators to quantify differences throughout the network pipeline: Dedis (input distance difference), DeSD (input standard deviation difference), DeDT (drug target prediction difference), and DePy (pathway prediction difference). The interrelationships among these indicators were examined to indicate when dosage adjustments influence predictions. A detailed case study further demonstrated the impact of dosage modifications on predictive outcomes. Results: Among the indicators with inputs difference, Dedis, but not DeSD, exhibited a statistically significant relationship with output predictions, with target differences (DeDT) ranging from 0% to 68.9% and pathway differences (DePy) ranging from 0% to 74.6%. The interrelationships between these indicators were visualized using a clock model representation. The case study further demonstrated the impact of dosage on network outputs, revealing dosage refined both the predicted drug targets for individual botanical drugs and the subsequent pathway analysis results. Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that dosage significantly influences the outcomes of network analysis, with Dedis serving as a reliable indicator of whether such changes would occur. Specifically, changes resulting from dosage-dependent refinement of both drug target prediction and pathway analysis were observed.
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.