Valorization of Invasive Aquatic Weed (

Megha Lovejan, K M Mujeeb Rahiman, C G Joshy, R Vipina, Remy Ntakirutimana

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Aquaculture nutrition, 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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Valorization of Invasive Aquatic Weed (Aquaculture nutrition · 2025
Article

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 authors.

Megha LovejanSchool of Industrial Fisheries, Cochin University of Science and Technology, Kochi, Kerala, India, cusat.ac.in.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3387-5682

K M Mujeeb RahimanSchool of Industrial Fisheries, Cochin University of Science and Technology, Kochi, Kerala, India, cusat.ac.in.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3938-6206

C G JoshyFish Processing Division, ICAR-Central Institute of Fisheries Technology, Kochi, Kerala, India, cift.res.in.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7205-1523

R VipinaPG Department of Microbiology, Majlis Arts and Science College, Malappuram, Kerala, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-6257-6943

Remy NtakirutimanaSchool of Industrial Fisheries, Cochin University of Science and Technology, Kochi, Kerala, India, cusat.ac.in.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5871-6063

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biofloc technology (BFT) has emerged as a sustainable aquaculture strategy, enabling high productivity with minimal water and land use. While diverse carbon sources are employed in BFT systems, identifying cost-effective and locally available alternatives can enhance profitability and adoption among farmers. This study evaluated the efficiency of five carbon sources, rice water (T1), jaggery (T2), sugar (T3),

Indexed as

biofloc technologycarbon sourcesE. crassipesfloc parametersGIFT tilapiasustainable farming

Identifiers

PMID41424697

DOI10.1155/anu/8838482

PMCPMC12714092

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.