ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluation of copper chloride crystallisation as a method for systems-level characterisation of phytopharmaceuticals - a pilot investigation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The multifaceted nature of phytotherapeutic products calls for methods able to provide a comprehensive and systems-level characterisation. Agricultural research suggests that copper chloride crystallisation (CCC) fingerprint analysis offers such possibilities. We therefore investigated the applicability of CCC to phytopharmaceutical questions. In this pilot trial, we analysed plant extracts of the same genus (Viscum album L.), featuring three progressively subtler differences: 1) subspecies (subsp. album vs austriacum), 2) deciduous host trees (apple vs oak), and 3) blending procedures (machine vs hand). In three sensitivity tests, we assessed CCC’s ability to detect these differences. CCC fingerprints were analysed using 7 variables characterising texture and structure. Systematic control experiments indicate that the setup is stable. In the Verum experiments, all variables passed the first sensitivity test (p < 0.01, Cohens’d 1.75–0.22). Four, mostly texture-related variables (p < 0.01, Cohens’d 0.56–0.26) and two structure variables (p < 0.01, Cohens’d 0.27, 0.20) passed the second and third sensitivity test, respectively. Our results demonstrated CCC’s ability, in our experimental setup, to detect differences between subspecies, deciduous host trees and blending procedures, although with progressively weaker statistical significance. Further development is needed to establish the relevance of CCC for phytopharmaceuticals and whether it can also detect systems-level properties.
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.