ArticleiScience2026
Large-scale assessment of regression modeling practices in phytomedicine extraction process optimization.
Article in iScience, 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.
- Ethnomedicinal Uses of Thai Legumes (Food science & nutrition · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Phytomedicine extraction-process optimization often relies on regression or machine learning models, but model choice is commonly judged by goodness of fit alone. Here, we assembled 1,148 structurally eligible extraction datasets from systematic literature screening and evaluated seven candidate models within a unified benchmark. The models included full quadratic regression, two subset-selected parsimonious regression models, quadratic ridge regression, support vector regression, partial least-squares regression, and Gaussian process regression. Performance was assessed across fitting, leave-one-out cross-validation, diagnostic behavior, and stability of model-predicted optima. Parsimonious regression models showed the most balanced profile, whereas some machine learning models reduced training errors without consistently improving cross-validated prediction or optimization stability. These results indicate that model selection can itself introduce optimization uncertainty and should be evaluated as a decision-oriented component of extraction-process modeling rather than by goodness of fit alone.
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.