Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42666754›Full record

ArticleiScience2026

Large-scale assessment of regression modeling practices in phytomedicine extraction process optimization.

Yuan Tao, Zhexuan Yu, Tianxue Chen, Wei Jin, Weifeng Jin, Li Yu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Ethnomedicinal Uses of Thai Legumes (Food science & nutrition · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Yuan TaoSchool of Medical Technology and Information Engineering, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310053, China.
Zhexuan YuSchool of Basic Medical Sciences, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310053, China.
Tianxue ChenSchool of Basic Medical Sciences, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310053, China.
Wei JinSchool of Medical Technology and Information Engineering, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310053, China.
Weifeng JinSchool of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310053, China.
Li YuSchool of Basic Medical Sciences, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310053, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

machine learningoptimization stabilityphytomedicine extractionRegressCheckregression modeling

Identifiers

PMID42666754
PMCPMC13523843

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.