ReviewBiology2026
Microalgae and Cyanobacteria in the Obesity Evidence Landscape: A PRISMA-ScR Scoping Review with Mechanistic and Safety Mapping.
Review in Biology, 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
Microalgae and cyanobacteria are investigated for compounds that may relate to obesity and metabolic phenotypes, yet the evidence base remains scattered and inconsistently reported. We conducted a PRISMA-ScR scoping review of PubMed, Europe PMC, and OpenAlex and mapped eligible full-text studies to a controlled vocabulary covering intervention concepts, mechanistic pathway nodes, and obesity-related outcome domains. Of 2651 reports sought for full text, 936/2651 (35.3%) were not retrieved; therefore, evidence maps should be interpreted as conditioned on full-text accessibility. We included 836 studies and summarized study density (counts only) by population/model tier, mechanistic reporting depth, chemical class, and safety/toxin flags. The literature is concentrated in animal models (485 studies) and human studies (292), with fewer in vitro/ex vivo reports (59). Mechanistic reporting was often limited: 582 studies did not provide extractable mechanistic endpoints, whereas 254 reported biomarker or pathway "anchors". Across intervention concepts, lipid/PUFA, carotenoids, phycobiliproteins, and polysaccharides were most common; within the anchored subset, inflammation (NF-κB), AMPK signaling, adipogenesis (PPARγ-related), and lipogenesis were the most frequently mapped nodes. Together, this evidence map clarifies where mechanistic anchoring and safety documentation are sparse and provides a clear starting point for downstream evaluation.
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.