ArticleJournal of biomedical semantics2026
From narrative evidence to computable knowledge: a decision-relevant corpus for medicinal herb-disease relationships.
Article in Journal of biomedical semantics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTraditional medicine (TM) employs medicinal herbs (MHs) to manage diverse health conditions, yet much of this evidence remains embedded in narrative biomedical text, limiting its use in computational analysis and decision making. As integrative medicine increasingly demands reliable, machine-interpretable knowledge, there is a need for structured representations of MH-disease relationships that prioritize evidential clarity and semantic consistency. This study aims to develop an expert-annotated corpus designed to support decision-relevant knowledge extraction for integrative biomedical informatics.
methodsWe developed the Medicinal Herb-Disease Relationships (MHDR) corpus by systematically collecting 800 PubMed abstracts using standardized pharmacognostic names. To ensure reliability for decision-support applications, relationships were extracted exclusively from key sentences-sentences that explicitly and unambiguously state MH-disease associations and provide direct evidence for the underlying claims. Relationships expressed in non-key sentences were intentionally excluded, as they often contain implicit, speculative, or context-dependent statements that may reduce decision reliability. Three TM experts manually annotated MH entities, disease entities, and explicit relationships through a four-phase consensus-driven protocol. Baseline Transformer-based models were evaluated for entity recognition, key-sentence identification, and relation extraction to assess the corpus's computational usability.
resultsThe MHDR corpus contains 5,119 medicinal herb mentions, 6,621 disease mentions, and 1,314 high-confidence MH-disease relationships derived from 832 decision-relevant key sentences. Baseline Transformer models demonstrated robust performance in recognizing entities and extracting relationships, confirming that the corpus supports stable and interpretable knowledge extraction suitable for downstream decision-support and evidence-integration tasks.
conclusionThe MHDR corpus represents a decision-oriented informatics resource for modeling medicinal herb-disease knowledge in TM. By restricting annotations to explicit evidence-bearing sentences, the corpus enhances semantic reliability and supports computable reasoning, enabling its use in clinical research analytics, ontology alignment, and integrative decision-making systems bridging traditional and modern medicine. The MHDR corpus is publicly available through GitHub ( https://github.com/KIOM-AIDoc/MHDR ) and Figshare ( https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29555549 ).
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.