New Exploration of Chinese Herbal Medicines in Hepatology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives of This Special IssueChronic liver diseases (CLD) are serious health-threatening problems worldwide.In particular, it is a significant healthcare burden in Southeast Asian countries where viral hepatitis is common.Regardless how the diseases are initiated, without proper intervention, CLD may gradually progress towards end-stage liver disease (ESLD), for which liver transplantation remains the only solution.Although this progression may be slow and gradual, there is no evidence showing that it could be reversed when cirrhosis has developed.Preventive intervention that may impede the progression of CLD is clinically favourable.Management of CLD depends on the etiology, and supporting treatment and hepatoprotective medicines are often provided.However, drug resistance and various adverse effects can lead to failure of treatment.Many countries have their own traditional medicines and herbal medicines are the main therapeutic materials in most traditional medicines.In the past decades, herbal medicines have been widely used to treat liver diseases.The pros and cons of herbal medicines for treatment of liver diseases are intensively debated in recent years.The main goal of this special issue is to showcase the latest research in this research area to promote academic exchanges and disseminate the state of the art. Analysis of This Special IssueThis special issue covers cutting-edge research topics on herbal medicines in hepatology, including original research articles and current reviews in the following categories:(i) Basic, translational, and clinical studies of herbal medicines for preventing and treating liver diseases and their complications.(ii) Liver injury induced by herbal medicines and herbdrug interaction.(iii) Systematic reviews on studies of herbal compounds, herbs, and herbal formulae for liver diseases.After a rigorous peer-review process, the special issue accepted nine manuscripts, including six original research papers and three review papers, out of 30 submissions.The accepted papers were financially supported by various funding schemes from different countries and regions including Mainland China, Hong Kong, Canada, Egypt, and South Korea.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".