ArticleACS omega2026
Recognition Analysis of Ginseng Radix et Rhizoma and Confused Varieties according to Chemometrics and Machine Learning.
Article in ACS omega, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGinseng radix et rhizoma (GRER) is widely used in China and around the world. Due to the shortages, high prices, and profitability, the market is also full of its confused varieties. Notoginseng radix et rhizoma, panacis quinquefolii radix, ginseng folium, and ginseng radix et rhizoma rubra are GRER's common confused varieties, which affected the market order and drug safety in the case of incorrect use. Therefore, it is very important to realize the recognition analysis of GRER and its confused varieties.
methodsGRER and its confused varieties were studied using ultraperformance liquid chromatography-quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry to convert the data matrix. Then, the data matrix was used to conduct principal component analysis (PCA) and partial least-squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA). At the same time, the data matrix was also used to construct data identification models based on machine learning, and the best model was screened for external appraisal and verification analysis. Moreover, the differential chemical components were analyzed on the basis of feature screening.
resultsthe data matrices contained 1971 chemical components and PCA and PLS-DA results showed that GRER cannot be clearly distinguished from confused varieties. However, all the identification models based on K-nearest neighbor, artificial neural network, support vector machine, naive bayes, and random forest (RF) had an excellent identification effect with area under the curve (AUC) ≥0.980, accuracy ≥0.800, and precision ≥0.870 in which the RF model showed the best recognition effect with AUC = 1.000, accuracy = 1.000, and precision = 1.000. Twenty batches of test samples were accurately identified by external verification, and the correct rate was 100%. Pseudoginsenoside F11, ginsenoside Rb2, ginsenoside Ro, and so on were the important distinguishing chemical markers.
conclusioncompared with chemometrics, machine learning presented better identification results. Moreover, the RF model has the best recognition effect, which helps to identify the GRER and its confused varieties. In addition, the characteristic components based on feature screening also contributed to the discrimination of the GRER and its confused varieties.
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.