ArticleSolid state nuclear magnetic resonance2025
Experimental and computational
Article in Solid state nuclear magnetic resonance, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Mineral Speciation for COChemistryOpen · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The importance of (bi)carbonate salts cannot be understated. They are vital to the Earth's geology and ecosystems and are used as precursors by chemists for the synthesis of functional materials. Naturally, solid-state NMR (ssNMR) appears as the spectroscopic tool of choice to probe the atomic-level structure and dynamics of (bi)carbonate salts. Of the possible nuclei available as spectroscopic probes in carbonate and bicarbonate ions (i.e.,
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.