ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2026
Integrating Biosynthetic, Genomic and Ecological Open Data for Medicinal Plant Research: A Leakage-Aware Evidence-Prioritization Framework.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medicinal plant research increasingly combines heterogeneous public data, but data leakage and unsupported biological inference remain major risks. We developed a leakage-aware framework separating taxon-compound evidence ranking from environmental niche characterization. Six taxa and ten molecules or broad classes formed 60 taxon-compound pairs (27 supported and 33 below-threshold background); primary modeling used 36 specific-molecule pairs (8 supported and 28 unlabeled background) and five compound-matched pathway/chemical predictors. Under leave-one-taxon-out validation, the prespecified balanced random forest achieved a balanced accuracy of 0.621 (95% fold interval: 0.500-0.800; accuracy: 0.694; precision: 0.250; recall: 0.500; permutation:
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.