ArticleiScience2025
Technological risks disrupting trade stability in the global lithium supply chain network.
Article in iScience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Vanadium-Based Materials in Metal-Ion Hybrid BatteriesBeyond Conventional Lithium-Ion Storage: A Review and Perspectives.Energy & fuels : an American Chemical Society journal · 2026Review
- Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Challenges in Evaluating Emerging Battery Technologies: A Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Technological risks in the lithium supply chain have garnered significant global attention. Yet limited research explores their impact on trade stability or how technological progress mitigates diffusion. This study analyzes the interplay of technological and trade risks-where risks such as technological disruptions and technical barriers to trade destabilize trade flows and amplify supply chain vulnerabilities-within the lithium supply chain, incorporating technology dependency and supply chain management theories. Findings reveal that the U.S. holds 56-79% of core technologies across stages, while China accounts for 6-25%. This monopoly fosters potential risks such as technological barriers and embargoes, leading to large-scale trade risk diffusion characterized by branching and interactive infection patterns. Global losses could reach $90.0 billion, while China may reduce downstream losses by $5.2 billion through tech advantages. This research reveals transmission mechanisms and simulates risk diffusion, offering new insights into supply chain sustainability.
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.