Article in Biodiversity data journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.
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
8 authors.
Michaela CaboňováDepartment of Microbial and Plant Interactions, Plant Science and Biodiversity Centre, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia Department of Microbial and Plant Interactions, Plant Science and Biodiversity Centre, Slovak Academy of Sciences Bratislava Slovakia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2207-6183
Marisol Sanchez-GarciaDepartment of Forest Mycology and Plant Pathology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden Department of Forest Mycology and Plant Pathology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Uppsala Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0635-6281
Miroslav CaboňDepartment of Microbial and Plant Interactions, Plant Science and Biodiversity Centre, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia Department of Microbial and Plant Interactions, Plant Science and Biodiversity Centre, Slovak Academy of Sciences Bratislava Slovakia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2255-3816
Katarína AdamčíkováDepartment of Plant Pathology and Mycology, Institute of Forest Ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Zvolen, Slovakia Department of Plant Pathology and Mycology, Institute of Forest Ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences Zvolen Slovakia.
Pierre-Arthur MoreauLaboratoire de Génie Civil et géo-Environnement, University of Lille, Lille, France Laboratoire de Génie Civil et géo-Environnement, University of Lille Lille France.
Alfredo VizziniDepartment of Life Sciences and Systems Biology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy Department of Life Sciences and Systems Biology, University of Turin Turin Italy.
Slavomír AdamčíkDepartment of Microbial and Plant Interactions, Plant Science and Biodiversity Centre, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia Department of Microbial and Plant Interactions, Plant Science and Biodiversity Centre, Slovak Academy of Sciences Bratislava Slovakia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2156-5767
Soňa JančovičováDepartment of Botany, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovakia Department of Botany, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University Bratislava Bratislava Slovakia.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
6 · The paper itself
Abstract
Background: The majority of members of the fungal genus New information: The pileipellis structure of
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.
Nomenclatural review of names published in the fungal genus · full record | OpenQuestion