ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Before Linnaeus and Darwin: the hierarchical taxonomy of Li Shizhen's
Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The vegetable section ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Aim: This study examines the structural and epistemological parallels between Li Shizhen's four-tiered classification system and the taxonomic frameworks of Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) and Charles Darwin (1809-1882), evaluates the historical transmission of the Compendium to Europe, and argues for integrating this text into modern medical and scientific education curricula. Methods: A comparative historical-textual analysis was conducted using the 1672 critical edition of the Results: Li Shizhen's classification system (kingdom → department → category → species) predates the Linnaean taxonomic hierarchy by about 175 years and reflects empirically and morphologically grounded groupings consistent with what is now recognized as alpha taxonomy. The Compendium's sequential ordering of organisms, attention to intraspecific variation, empiricist critical methodology, and ecologically grounded groupings collectively exhibit structural and epistemological features analogous to-though not mechanistically anticipating-elements of Darwinian natural history. These parallels are structural and analogical; the Compendium does not articulate a theory of evolutionary transformation, and its sequential ordering reflects a traditional Chinese cosmological framework rather than evolutionary genealogy. Conclusion: The
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.