Quantitative comparison of similarities and differences in medicinal materials used by Tibetan medicine and the three traditional medicines (6th−10th Century AD)

Jingwen Zhang; Ran Li; Zhuoma Sanzhi; Lili Xu; Yiye Li; Ting Zhang; Zhongyuan Wang; Yunhui Shen; Yingxia Tang; Haowen Li; Min Wang; Yushuang Shou; Liping Luo; Yinglian Song; Wanyue Chen; Zhuoma Garang; Rizhun Luo; Tingting Kuang; Xinyang Song; Yongzhong Zeweng; Zhang Wang

doi:10.1186/s13002-026-00925-1

. 2026 Jul 10;22:75. doi: 10.1186/s13002-026-00925-1

Quantitative comparison of similarities and differences in medicinal materials used by Tibetan medicine and the three traditional medicines (6th−10th Century AD)

Jingwen Zhang ^1,², Ran Li ¹, Zhuoma Sanzhi ¹, Lili Xu ³, Yiye Li ², Ting Zhang ², Zhongyuan Wang ², Yunhui Shen ⁴, Yingxia Tang ², Haowen Li ², Min Wang ², Yushuang Shou ², Liping Luo ², Yinglian Song ², Wanyue Chen ², Zhuoma Garang ¹, Rizhun Luo ¹, Tingting Kuang ^1,^5,^✉, Xinyang Song ^3,^6,^✉, Yongzhong Zeweng ^1,^✉, Zhang Wang ^1,^5,^✉

PMCID: PMC13435479 PMID: 42432719

Abstract

Background

Tibetan medicine has historically engaged in extensive exchanges with the three traditional medicines. These interactions peaked during the Tubo Dynasty (7th-9th century AD). Numerous scholars have acknowledged the close medical and cultural exchanges between Tibetan medicine and the three traditional medicines, but studies offering quantitative and objective comparative results are lacking.

Aim

This study quantitatively analyzes the above problems from the perspective of medicinal materials and discusses the general use of medicinal materials in Tibetan medicine, the three traditional medical systems, and the exchange of co-used medicinal materials among them. It provides a preliminary analysis of the source composition of Tibetan medicinal materials.

Methods

Firstly, Data mining: Data were extracted from 20 classical texts on Tibetan medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurveda and Arabic medicine dating from the 6th century AD to the 10th century AD. Information on medical properties, namely, medicinal taste, distribution, medicinal parts, efficacy, therapeutic use, and usage and dosage of medicinal materials, were systematically compiled to establish the datasets. Secondly, Analysis and comparison: Similarities and differences among medicinal materials used in Tibetan medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurveda, and Arabic medicine between the 6th and 10th centuries AD were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney test (a non-parametric method) and an intuitive comparison method.

Results

The total numbers of medicinal materials in Tibetan medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurveda, and Arabic medicine were 1229, 2184, 760, and 511, respectively. The overall comparison showed that Tibetan medicine, traditional Chinese Medicine, Ayurveda, and Arabic medicine all used plants as the main source of medicinal materials, accounting for 65.09%, 59.02%, 74.74%, and 67.32%, respectively. There were significant differences in medicinal parts, therapeutic uses, and medicinal taste among them (p < 0.05). In terms of medicinal parts, traditional Chinese medicine mostly used whole herbs and rhizomes, whereas Tibetan medicine, Ayurveda, and Arabic medicine were more inclined to use renewable fruits, seeds, and leaves. Regarding treatment, although the four traditional medicines were generally used to treat digestive diseases, traditional Chinese medicine was more commonly used to treat skin diseases, whereas Ayurveda and Arabic medicine were more commonly used to treat respiratory and urogenital diseases. The comparison of co-used medicinal materials showed that Tibetan medicine had 248 kinds of co-used medicinal materials with Traditional Chinese Medicine, 140 with Ayurveda, and 128 with Arabic medicine. These co-used medicinal materials exhibited similarities and differences in terms of medicinal parts, therapeutic applications, and dose specifications.

Conclusions

This study found differences and similarities in the use of medicinal materials across the four traditional medicines. Significant differences in medicinal parts, therapeutic uses, and dosage forms were found, which were attributed to the combined influence of multiple factors, such as medical theory and cultural customs. In addition, a partial overlap was found between the medicinal materials used in Tibetan medicine and the three medical systems. This finding indicates that although grounded in locally available resources, Tibetan medicine has incorporated medicinal material information from traditional Chinese medicine (20.18%), Ayurveda (11.19%), and Arabic medicine (10.41%). Overall, these findings provide an empirical basis for understanding similarities and differences between Tibetan medicine and the three major medical systems and offer a novel perspective for comparative research in traditional medicine.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13002-026-00925-1.

Keywords: Tibetan medicine, Traditional Chinese Medicine, Ayurveda, Arabic medicine, Medicinal materials, Co-used medicinal materials, Similarity, Differentiation

Background

The Qinghai-Tibet Plateau is regarded as one of the cradles of Chinese civilization and culture. The population of the region is predominantly Tibetan [1]. As one of the four major national medical systems in China, Tibetan medicine [2] is a unique medical system developed by Tibetan people in response to the challenges of natural disasters and diseases [3]. It has evolved into an important pillar of ethnomedicine [4]. The history of Tibetan medicine can be traced back approximately 3800 years. It is the primary medical system in Tibet and the second largest traditional medical system in China [5]. Over time, it has spread to surrounding regions and the world [6]. Around the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, three well-established traditional medical systems constitute the main knowledge centers: traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurveda, and Arabic medicine. As the most influential traditional medicine in China [7], traditional Chinese medicine has made substantial contributions to the healthcare of Chinese people and even to the worldwide population [8]. India’s traditional medical system includes Ayurveda, Unani medicine, Siddha, Yoga, naturopathy, and homoeopathy [9]. Ayurveda has a history of 3000–5000 years and is still practiced in Southeast and South Asian countries. Its theoretical basis is derived from the “Atharvaveda” [10, 11]. In the 7th century, Arabic medicine rapidly integrated and developed medical theories by systematically translating Greek, Persian, and other classical medical books [12]. Its guiding philosophy was proposed by Empedocles [13].

The Four Medical Tantras (དཔལ་ལྡན་རྒྱུད་བཞི༎) is a foundational book of Tibetan medicine that integrates the essence of practical experience and theoretical basis of Tibetan medicine. The book benefited from the practice and exploration of Tibetan doctors and incorporates knowledge from other traditional medicine systems, such as Indian medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, and Arabic medicine. It was compiled by Yutuo Nyingma Yundan Gonpo (宇妥宁玛·元丹贡布) at the end of the eighth century AD, and was finalized and handed down to the present day by the revisions and additions made by Yutuo Sama Yundan Gonpo in the 12th century AD [14]. The inclusion of the Four Medical Tantras in the Asia Pacific Regional Register of Memory of the World Programme in 2018 and Memory of the World Register in 2023 marked the increasing internationalization of Tibetan medicine. This text is one of the most complete and influential representatives of Tibetan medicine [15]. It was compiled during the Tubo Dynasty (approximately in 7th-9th centuries AD). Historical documents and academic research have confirmed the extensive channels of exchange between Tibetan medicine and the three traditional medicines during this period. The development of traditional Chinese medicine cannot be separated from ethnic minority medicine. Conversely, ethnic minority medicine continuously incorporates and integrates theoretical knowledge from traditional Chinese medicine [16]. In 641 AD, the intermarriage between the Tang and Tubo Dynasties had strengthened the cultural exchange between the Han and Tibetan ethnic groups [17]. Tibetan historical documents record that traditional Chinese medicine was introduced to the Tibetan region during the Tang Dynasty [18]. Huang Hao pointed out that during the Tubo period, 27 medical books translated into Tibetan were disseminated in the Tibetan medical community, and 11 senior doctors participated in the dissemination of traditional Chinese medicine [19]. Songtsen Gampo hired three physicians from India, Handi (Tang Dynasty), and Dashi (Arab Empire), who collaborated to compile seven volumes of Fearless Weapons 《无畏的武器》[20]. In the 8th century AD, a large number of ancient Indian Sanskrit medical texts were translated into Tibetan [21] and the Danzhur 《丹珠尔》 included the Astānga Hrdaya Samhitā 《八支心要本集》[22]. Da Shi (大食) also made considerable contributions to Tibetan medicine, particularly during its development and compilation of the Four Medical Tantras [23]. Hui Hui Yao Fang 《回回药方》is a book based on Arabic medicine. It absorbs the essence of traditional Chinese medicine, Xinjiang Uyghur medicine, and other minority medical systems. The text represents a typical product of Chinese and foreign medical exchanges [24].

From the 6th century AD to the 10th century AD, a large number of classic medical texts emerged across the four traditional medicines. Tibetan medicine has many representative classical texts, including the earliest existing Tibetan medicine acupuncture monograph [25], the earliest existing Tibetan medicine classic Yue Wang Yao Zhen 《月王药诊》 [26], and the main medical classic of Tibetan medicine, Four Medical Tantras 《四部医典》 [27]. In the field of traditional Chinese medicine, the Tang Dynasty is the peak period in the compilation of medical classics, during which numerous seminal works emerged. Among them, the Xin Xiu Ben Cao 《新修本草》was compiled by the court and became the first national pharmacopoeia of China. Sun Simiao’s Qian Jin Fang 《千金方》 is a collection of medical achievements before the Tang Dynasty, paying equal attention to theory and clinical practice. Wai Tai Mi Yao《外台秘要》, compiled by Wang Tao, preserved a large number of medical documents produced before and during the early Tang Dynasty, thus holding substantial historical value. During the same period, classic works emerged in Ayurveda, such as the classic works in Indian medicine, Charaka Samhitā 《阇罗迦本集》 (focusing on internal medicine) [28], Susruta Samhitā 《妙闻本集》 (focusing on surgery) [29], and Astānga Hrdaya Samhitā 《八支心要本集》(focusing on internal medicine and surgery) [30]. These three books are known as the “three elders of Ayurveda” [31]. Similarly, Arabic medicine produced a large number of classic works, such as Madhavakara’s Madhava Nidana [32], Rhazes’ Liber Medicinalis ad Almansorem 《曼苏尔医书》and the Jameh al Kabir 《医学集成》. Avicenna wrote a total of 45 books, including the Al-Qanun fial-Tibb 《医典》and On the Treatment of Heart Disease 《论心脏病的治疗》. However, five of his works have incomplete Western translation, and only the first book is available in English and Chinese [33]. During the Five Dynasties period (907–960 AD), the Persian Li Xun wrote Hai Yao Ben Cao 《海药本草》, which contained 124 kinds of medicinal materials [34], most of which were Persian medicinal materials.

Scholars at home and abroad have conducted extensive research on the relationship between Tibetan medicine and the three medical systems from different academic perspectives. Tibetan medicine and traditional Chinese medicine have historically exchanged knowledge in basic theories [35], prescriptions, and medicinal materials throughout history. Similarities in the names or pharmacological effects of Chinese and Tibetan medicinal materials. For example, Hezi (known as “Arura” in Tibetan) is a commonly used medicinal material in Tibetan medicine, which derived from the fruits of several plants, such as Terminalia chebula Retz. and Terminalia chebula Retz. var. tomentella Kurt. Tibetan doctors regarded it as the “king of all medicines” that can regulate the three factors and treat all diseases. Thus, it is also used in traditional Chinese medicine. The powder of Terminalia chebula Retz. is included in the Ji Sheng Fang 《济生方》. It is used to treat chronic diarrhea, rectal prolapse, lung deficiency, cough, and asthma owing to its astringent effect. Tibetan medicine and traditional Chinese medicine use similar multiple medicinal materials formulations [36], such as triphala (Terminalia chebula Retz., Phyllanthus emblica L., and Terminalia bellirica (Gaertn.) Roxb.). Wu Lei [37] conducted a comprehensive literature survey on the application of triphala in traditional Chinese medicine at home and abroad, and found that 432 ancient Chinese medicine books from the Han Dynasty to the People’s Republic of China recorded the medicinal compound formula of the triphala. To some extent, this indicates a history of exchange and mutual learning between ancient Tibetan medicine and traditional Chinese medicine. Scholars such as Sun Ming [38] and Li Ran [39] have comparatively analyzed the pharmaceutical preparations of Indian Ayurveda and Chinese traditional medicine (including Tibetan medicine). Li Xiaoli [40] conducted a comparative analysis of medicinal materials in the Chinese and Indian pharmacopoeias, finding certain differences in the characteristics of Chinese and Indian medicinal materials. Comparative studies on Tibetan medicine and Ayurveda have mainly focused on the Four Medical Tantras and Astānga Hrdaya Samhitā. As representative classics of Tibetan medicine and Ayurveda, they have important academic status [41]. Liu Yinghua [42] discussed the “eight branches” method of disease division used in the two medical books. The comparison revealed that the sections on gynecology and the five sense organs are present in the Four Medical Tantras, whereas the Astānga Hrdaya Samhitā does not include this classification method. Luo Rizhun introduced similarities and differences in diagnostic methods between the two books [43]. The German scholar R. E. Emmerick compared the contents on epilepsy and geriatric medicine and identified similarities and differences. Comparative studies on Tibetan and Arabic medicine are primarily conducted through representative works, namely, the Four Medical Tantras and Canon of Medicine by Avicenna. Zhu Jiao et al. [44] compared the theoretical background, urine diagnosis time, and urine diagnosis methods of the Four Medical Tantras and Canon of Medicine by Avicenna and analyzed and summarized the similarities and differences. Gong Baodong et al. [45] examined the influence of pulse location and season on pulse diagnosis in the two classical texts and identified similarities and differences in pulse location and season on pulse. Ciren Zhuoma et al. [46] compared bloodletting practices in the two texts in terms of therapeutic purposes, instruments, methods, indications, and related aspects and provided a preliminary summary the similarities and differences in bloodletting therapy. Most studies, which are predominantly qualitative studies, have focused on the basic theories, diagnosis, and treatment methods of Tibetan medicine and the three medical systems, preliminarily revealing their similarities and differences. However, a systematic comparative study of the specific application of medicinal materials is lacking. This research gap needs to be addressed to enable a comprehensive understanding of the internal relationships and differences between Tibetan medicine and the three medical systems.

Since ancient times, Tibetan medicine has engaged in cultural exchanges with the three traditional medical systems in the areas of diagnosis and use of medicinal materials. However, quantitative analysis of medicinal material exchanges is lacking. In the early stage, the research group took the food, beverages, medicinal materials, and preparations contained in the Four Medical Tantras and the Astānga Hrdaya Samhitā as research objects. They quantitatively analyzed the similarities and differences between the two classics from the treatment perspective and initially revealed the characteristics of Tibetan medicine and Ayurveda in diet therapy and medicinal material therapy [47]. Although the Four Medical Tantras (around the 8th century AD) is deeply influenced by Ayurveda, elements from other traditional medicines have been incorporated. To further understand the communication between Tibetan medicine and other traditional medicines, this study uses the completion time of the Four Medical Tantras as the core reference point. Approximately 20 classic medical books related to the four traditional medicines from the 6th century AD to the 10th century AD were selected as data sources and a quantitative analysis framework was implemented. Four databases established for Tibetan medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurveda, and Arabic medicine from the 6th century AD to the 10th century AD were used to analyze medicinal materials in the four traditional medicines. The analysis covered types, families, properties, tastes, medicinal parts, therapeutic uses, and doses. The Mann-Whitney test and descriptive statistics were applied. Furthermore, the characteristics of medicinal materials used in Tibetan medicine were compared with those used in the three traditional medicines, identified co-used medicinal materials, and compared their similarities and differences in various aspects. Based on these analyses, the study preliminarily revealed the influence of the three traditional medicines on Tibetan medicine.

It is generally believed that Tibetan medicine originated on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. It is a unique high-altitude medical system developed on the basis of the native culture and traditional empirical medicine of the Tibetan ethnic group in China, while incorporating the essence of ancient Indian medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, and Greek-Arabic medicine. From the perspective of medicinal materials used in Tibetan medicine, this study attempts to quantitatively verify the above-established understanding. Four databases for Tibetan medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurveda, and Arabic medicine from the 6th century AD to the 10th century AD were established in this study. The numbers of medicinal materials collected were 1229, 2184, 760, and 511, respectively. This study aims to address the following core scientific questions: what are the overall similarities and differences between medicinal materials used in Tibetan medicine and those used in traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurveda, and Arabic medicine? What proportion does each of the other three traditional medicines contribute to the medicinal material composition of Tibetan medicine? To answer these questions, we propose a core hypothesis: The medicinal materials used in Tibetan medicine are primarily derived from indigenous resources of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, with those originating from other medical systems accounting for a relatively small proportion. Based on this core hypothesis, we propose the following specific hypotheses: the four medical systems differ considerably in the species of medicinal materials they use; they differ considerably in the major diseases they treat with these materials; and they differ considerably in the medicinal parts they use.

Materials and methods

Literature resources

This article extracted medicinal information from the following books. The books related to Tibetan medicine were the Four Medical Tantras 《四部医典》 (around the 8th century AD) [48], Yue Wang Yao Zhen 《月王药诊》(mid-8th century AD) [49], Dun Huang Ben Tu Bo Yi Xue Wen Xian Jing Yao 《敦煌本吐蕃医学文献精要》 (around the 8th century AD) [50], Yu Tuo Ben Cao 《宇妥本草》 (mid-8th century AD) [51], Miao Yin Ben Cao 《妙音本草》 (mid-8th century AD) [52], Du Mu Ben Cao 《度母本草》 (mid-8th century AD) [53]; the books related to traditional Chinese medicine were Xin Xiu Ben Cao 《新修本草》 (659 AD) [54], Qian Jing Yao Fang 《千金方》 (652 AD) [55], Wai Tai Mi Yao 《外台秘要》 (752 AD) [56], Ben Cao Shi Yi 《本草拾遗》 (741AD) [57] and Shi Liao Ben Cao《食疗本草》 (713-741AD) [58]; the books related to Ayurveda were Astānga Hrdaya Samhitā 《八支心要本集》 (around the 6th century AD); the books related to Arabic medicine were The Canon of Medicine of Avicenna 《阿维森纳医典》 (980-1037AD) [59] and the Huihui Yao Fang 《回回药方》 (1368-1403AD) [60]. Medicinal materials information included the name of the medicinal material, Latin scientific name, family name, genus name, medicinal parts, taste, therapeutic use, dosage, etc.

Database construction

The above information was recorded in Microsoft Excel 2010, encompassing Tibetan medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurveda, and Arabic medicine from the 6th century AD to the 10th century AD. The numbers of medicinal materials collected from each book were as follows: Four Medical Tantras (950), Yue Wang Yao Zhen (811), Dun Huang Ben Tu Bo Yi Xue Wen Xian Jing Yao (368), Yu Tuo Ben Cao (189), Miao Yin Ben Cao (199), Du Mu Ben Cao (238), Xin Xiu Ben Cao (889), Qian Jing Yao Fang (1716), Wai Tai Mi Yao (1268), Ben Cao Shi Yi (985), Shi Liao Ben Cao (262), Astānga Hrdaya Samhitā (760), The Canon of Medicine of Avicenna (361), Huihui Yao Fang (1117). All entries were compiled into a standardized table with uniformly designed fields (Chinese name, Latin name, English name, medicinal material category, medicinal taste, therapeutic use, and dose). Information about Latin names, therapeutic uses, dosage forms, and doses in the proposed database was extracted to supplement the database. The flowchart of database establishment is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 — Flowchart of database establishment. (The flowchart shows the step-by-step process of database construction, identification, screening, included.)

The standardization rules were as follows: ① When the same medicinal material (standardized by its Latin name) appears in different texts, it was merged into a single record, and all differential information was retained. ② When the names of medicinal materials from different classics (e.g., Tibetan, Sanskrit, and Chinese names) referred to the same biological species, the following books were used as references: the Pharmacopoeia of the People’s Republic of China [61], among others. In addition, the online database of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (https://powo.science.kew.org/), was used to standardize the names to their universally accepted Latin scientific names. ③ Items (such as mixtures) that cannot be accurately identified as species were included in the “other” category, which was not included in quantitative comparisons but retained in the total number of medicinal materials. ④ Medicinal materials without Latin scientific names (unknown in the literature) were classified according to Chinese and English names and were not included in the statistics of families and genera of medicinal materials. ⑤ In addition, many professional terms in Tibetan medicine, traditional Chinese medicine and Ayurveda were difficult to correspond to Western medical terms, and some medicinal materials were difficult to determine Latin names. Therefore, flexible approaches, such as transliteration and direct translation, were adopted to prevent misunderstanding and confusion.

To evaluate the completeness and accuracy of data extraction, we established a gold standard set and conducted a consistency test. Three senior experts (from the fields of Tibetan medicine, traditional Chinese medicine and plant taxonomy) jointly identified 100 core medicinal materials as the gold standard set. At the same time, in order to evaluate the quality of data extraction, we used a random sampling method to conduct an independent double review of 10% of the total number of items. The accuracy of information extraction was 95.1%, and the recall rate was 91.8%, which indicated high accuracy and integrity.

A total of 1229 medicinal materials were included in the database of Tibetan medicinal materials between the 6th and 10th centuries AD, including 800 botanical medicines (65.09%), 201 animal medicines (16.35%), 133 mineral medicines (10.82%) and 95 other medicines (7.73%). In addition, 2184 medicinal materials were included in the database of traditional Chinese medicinal materials between the 6th and 10th centuries AD, of which 1289 (59.02%) were botanical medicines, followed by 430 animal medicines (19.69%), 320 mineral medicines (14.65%) and 145 other medicines (6.64%). 760 medicinal materials were included in the database of Ayurvedic medicinal materials between the 6th and 10th centuries AD, of which 568 (74.74%) were botanical medicines, 113 (14.87%) were animal medicines, 52 (6.84%) were mineral medicines, and 27 were other medicines (3.55%). The database of Arabic medicinal materials between the 6th and 10th centuries AD included 511 medicinal materials: 344 botanical medicines (67.32%), 77 animal medicines (15.07%), 71 mineral medicines (13.89%), and 19 other medicines (3.72%).

Classification characteristics

The Latin name was checked according to Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (https://powo.science.kew.org/). The types of medicinal materials were classified according to “Botanical medicinal materials, Animal medicinal materials, Mineral medicinal materials, Others” Habitat Reference International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/habitat-classification-scheme) classifying standard of habitat of statistics. The medicinal parts were classified and counted according to the classification standard of medicinal parts of medicinal materials in the textbook Science of TCM Identification [62]. Therapeutic use was classified and counted in accordance with the “GB/T 14396 − 2016 Classification and Code of Diseases” approved and released by the National Standardization Administration.

In terms of disease analysis, in order to carry out cross-system comparison, we mapped the pathological concepts of “heart vessel disease,” “blood vessel disease” in Tibetan medicine and “delusional vision” in traditional Chinese medicine to the framework of “GB/T 14396 − 2016 disease classification and coding.” For example, Tibetan medicine’s “heart vein disease” was similar to cardiovascular disease, so it was mapped to “circulatory system disease”; the “delusional vision due to loss of soul” of traditional Chinese medicine was mapped to “mental and behavioral disorders.” For the concept of diseases that cannot be mapped, such as “rLung,” “Tripa,” and “Béken” in Tibetan medicine, the concept was very unique and cannot be directly equivalent to any single system or disease of modern medicine. It was added to the “Special Diseases” of Tibetan medicine alone, and other medicine also adopts this method. The mapping work was independently performed by two senior traditional medicine researchers, and disagreements were resolved through discussion. According to the international standard to unify the therapeutic use of various medicinal materials, comparing and analyzing systemic diseases, such as respiratory and digestive system diseases.

In terms of dose conversion, the Tibetan medicine dose was based on the Tibetan Medicine Standard (Volume I) [63] and Li Qien’s Tibetan medicine traditional weighing unit examination and determination [64]; the dose of traditional Chinese medicine was based on the standard provided by Zhang Zhiguo’s research on the measurement of traditional Chinese medicine [65]; the dose of Arabic medicine was based on Song Xian’s On the dose relationship between ancient Arabic medical books and Huihui prescription [66]. In the study, the quantifiable dose was converted into international gram (g) unit. For concrete quantifiers, such as “yi peng, yi li” (一捧、一粒), which were difficult to be accurately converted, the original expression was retained to preserve the authenticity of the literature and ensure the rigor in textual analysis.

The four natures of traditional Chinese medicine are cold, cool, warm, hot and flat. As recorded in the Four Medical Tantras (Gyushi), the properties and effects of medicinal substances include 17 types: cold, hot, warm, cool, dry, thin, moist, rough, light, weight, stability, mobility, blunt, sharp, tenderness, dry, and soft. Vīrya (energy or potency) is classified into two types: hot (Usna) and cold (Śīta). The four properties of the human body (cold, hot, damp, and dry) are mentioned in the The Canon of Medicine of Avicenna, which follow the rules of matching in medicine, diet and human body signs. The following is a preliminary comparison based on the characteristics of medicinal materials.

In the subsequent quantitative analysis, all frequency statistics were based on the count of “material × characteristic” records. For example, when a medicinal material was recorded as having “sweet” and “bitter” taste, each taste was counted once in the taste statistics. That is, when a medicinal material exhibited multiple tastes, each taste was counted separately. To ensure fairness in cross-system comparisons, this method was also applied to the classification of properties, therapeutic uses, medicinal parts, and other categories.

Statistical analysis

The data of medicinal materials in the database were systematically compared and characterized through statistical analysis. Differences in medicinal tastes, medicinal parts, and therapeutic uses among the medical systems were determined, and the core analysis was focused on medicinal material species. According to the specific comparison content, corresponding observation units and null hypotheses were set. For example, in comparing the properties and tastes of medicinal materials, the observation unit was defined as the frequency value of each medicinal taste (e.g., sweet and bitter) for each medical system. The null hypothesis was that no significant difference in the frequency distribution of various tastes (e.g., sweet and bitter) between Tibetan medicine and the other traditional medicines between the 6th and 10th centuries AD.

This study is the first large-scale study to quantify historical literature and comparatively analyze medicinal materials used across multiple medical systems between the 6th and 10th centuries AD, and paired comparison tests were conducted. The primary objective was to reveal the overall characteristics of medicinal material use with exploratory and descriptive models, rather than to perform rigorous confirmatory hypothesis testing. Therefore, we did not apply corrections for multiple comparisons to all p-values. The p-values reported were mainly used to describe and quantify the observed difference in patterns, and thus multiple comparisons were not statistically corrected. The reported p-values were also used to quantify the differences, rather than to serve as strict criteria for significance.

Moreover, this study mainly focused on the descriptive analysis and display of the characteristics of the use of medicinal materials in different medical systems. The inter-group comparisons were based on the species of medicinal materials. The Mann -Whitney test was used, and a non-parametric test was conducted using SPSS 26.0 software. Two types of quantitative comparative analyses were performed on Tibetan medicine and the three traditional medicines: One compared the overall situation of the medicinal materials database of the four medical systems, and the other compared the medicinal materials data shared by the four medical systems. The comparison covered the types of medicinal materials, medicinal properties, medicinal taste, and therapeutic uses. “*p < 0.05” indicated that difference between means was statistically significant, “**p < 0.01” suggested that the difference between means was highly statistically significant, and “***p < 0.001” indicated that the difference between the means was highly statistically significant.

General comparison of the used medicinal materials by Tibetan medicine and the three traditional medicines

A total of 1229 Tibetan medicinal materials, 2184 traditional Chinese medicinal materials, 760 Ayurveda medicinal materials, and 511 Arabic medicinal materials between the 6th and 10th centuries AD were included. The overall comparative study on the characteristics of Tibetan medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurveda, and Arabic medicine facilitates the identification of differences and similarities between Tibetan medicine and the three traditional medicine systems.

Comparison of types of medicinal materials

The cross-medical system comparison between the 6th and 10th centuries AD reveals that Tibetan medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurveda, and Arabic medicine use botanical medicinal materials as the primary source of medicinal materials (accounting for 65.09%, 59.02%, 74.74%, and 67.32%, respectively). The results of non-parametric tests showed that the types of medicinal materials used in Tibetan medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, and Ayurveda were generally not similar (p < 0.01). The medicinal material repertoires of Tibetan medicine and Arabic medicine showed similarity (p > 0.05), as detailed in Table 1; Fig. 2. For example, in the similar proportion of botanical medicinal materials (Tibetan medicine 65.09% vs. Arabic medicine 67.32%), these descriptive data showed that there is a similar pattern in the selection of medicinal resources. In addition, the absolute number and proportion of animal medicinal materials used in India were lower than those of the other three medicine, and this difference may be related to the concept of non-killing in Indian society and the prevalence of vegetarianism [67].

Table 1.

Comparative statistical table of the types of medicinal materials

Types of medicinal materials	Tibetan medicine (n=1229)		Traditional Chinese medicine (n=2184)		Ayurveda (n=760)		Arabic Medicine (n=511)
Types of medicinal materials	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
p-value	——		2.55 × 10^-3**		6.58 × 10^-7***		2.72 × 10^-1
Botanical medicinal materials	800	65.09%	1289	59.02%	568	74.74%	344	67.32%
Animal medicinal materials	201	16.35%	430	19.69%	113	14.87%	77	15.07%
Mineral medicinal materials	133	10.82%	320	14.65%	52	6.84%	71	13.89%
Others	95	7.73%	145	6.64%	27	3.55%	19	3.72%

Family name	Tibetan medicine		Traditional Chinese medicine		Ayurveda		Arabic Medicine
Family name	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage
p-value	——		5.83 × 10^− 10***		7.03 × 10^− 11***		8.05 × 10^− 9***
Asteraceae	81	9.26%	60	5.91%	16	2.72%	18	5.08%
Fabaceae	50	5.71%	42	4.13%	59	10.02%	24	6.78%
Ranunculaceae	49	5.60%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Apiaceae	25	2.86%	22	2.17%	15	2.55%	18	5.08%
Papaveraceae	24	2.74%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Gentianaceae	23	2.63%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Rosaceae	23	2.63%	29	2.85%	0	0	16	4.52%
Poaceae	22	2.51%	43	4.23%	25	4.24%	11	3.11%
Brassicaceae	22	2.51%	21	2.07%	0	0	11	3.11%
Lamiaceae	21	2.40%	26	2.56%	12	2.04%	19	5.37%
Liliaceae	0	0	20	1.97%	0	0	0	0
Cucurbitaceae	0	0	18	1.77%	21	3.57%	8	2.26%
Rutaceae	0	0	18	1.77%	0	0	8	2.26%
Apocynaceae	0	0	0	0	15	2.55%	0	0
Zingiberaceae	0	0	0	0	12	2.04%	0	0
Euphorbiaceae	0	0	0	0	11	1.87%	0	0
Anacardiaceae	0	0	0	0	11	1.87%	0	0
Bovidae	0	0	0	0	0	0	8	2.26%

Genus name	Tibetan medicine		Traditional Chinese medicine		Ayurveda		Arabic Medicine
Genus name	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage
p-value	——		7.59 × 10^− 16***		8.54 × 10^− 24***		9.28 × 10^− 11***
Corydalis	16	1.87%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Allium	13	1.52%	7	0.72%	0	0	5	1.51%
Gentiana	13	1.52%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Pedicularis	13	1.52%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Artemisia	12	1.41%	10	1.03%	0	0	3	0.90%
Aconitum	12	1.41%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Delphinium	10	1.17%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Rhododendron	9	1.05%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Saussurea	9	1.05%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Rheum	7	0.82%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Bos	0	0	10	1.03%	0	0	3	0.90%
Polygonum	0	0	7	0.72%	0	0	0	0
Pinus	0	0	7	0.72%	0	0	3	0.90%
Euphorbia	0	0	6	0.62%	4	0.69%	0	0
Citrus	0	0	6	0.62%	5	0.86%	0	0
Solanum	0	0	6	0.62%	0	0	0	0
Brassica	0	0	6	0.62%	0	0	4	1.20%
Zanthoxylum	0	0	5	0.52%	0	0	0	0
Piper	0	0	0	0	7	1.20%	0	0
Terminalia	0	0	0	0	7	1.20%	0	0
Ficus	0	0	0	0	6	1.03%	0	0
Cassia	0	0	0	0	5	0.86%	0	0
Jasminum	0	0	0	0	5	0.86%	0	0
Acacia	0	0	0	0	5	0.86%	0	0
Prunus	0	0	0	0	4	0.69%	5	1.51%
Mentha	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	1.51%
Citrus	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	0.90%
Vitis	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	0.90%
Apium	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	0.90%

Medicinal parts	Tibetan medicine (n = 199)		Traditional Chinese medicine(n = 842)		Ayurveda (n = 1335)		Arabic Medicine (n = 363)
Medicinal parts	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage
p-value	——		1.51 × 10^− 3**		4.52 × 10^− 10***		8.24 × 10^− 3**
Fruits and seeds	62	31.16%	186	22.09%	304	22.77%	132	36.36%
Leaves	44	22.11%	151	17.93%	179	13.41%	30	8.26%
Roots and rhizomes	39	19.60%	259	30.76%	258	19.33%	58	15.98%
Flowers	27	13.57%	39	4.63%	92	6.89%	25	6.89%
Others	13	6.53%	104	12.35%	41	3.07%	15	4.13%
Cortex	11	5.53%	62	7.36%	189	14.16%	11	3.03%
Stems and wood	2	1.01%	33	3.92%	84	6.29%	32	8.82%
Resins	1	0.50%	4	0.48%	56	4.19%	23	6.34%
Whole medicinal materials	0	0.00%	3	0.36%	132	9.89%	36	9.92%
Algae, fungi, lichens	0	0.00%	1	0.12%	0	0.00%	1	0.28%

Medicinal materials taste	Tibetan medicine (n = 405)		Traditional Chinese medicine (n = 1369)		Ayurveda (n = 794)		Arabic Medicine (n = 80)
Medicinal materials taste	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage
p-value	——		4.32 × 10^− 3**		2.41 × 10^− 3**		1.99 × 10^− 2*
Bitter	138	34.07%	360	26.30%	214	26.95%	14	17.95%
Sweet	113	27.90%	426	31.12%	196	24.69%	28	35.90%
Pungent	73	18.02%	296	21.62%	152	19.14%	23	29.49%
Astringent	35	8.64%	40	2.92%	187	23.55%	2	2.56%
Acid	34	8.40%	119	8.69%	39	4.91%	5	6.41%
Salty	12	2.96%	128	9.35%	6	0.76%	8	10.26%

Medicinal properties	Tibetan medicine (n = 136)		Traditional Chinese medicine (n = 1235)		Ayurveda (n = 296)		Arabic Medicine (n = 23)
Medicinal properties	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage
p-value	——		3.31 × 10^− 17***		2.28 × 10^− 2*		1.00 × 10^− 6***
Cold (Cool)	54	39.71%	430	34.82%	155	52.36%	5	21.74%
Rough	28	20.59%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Greasy	17	12.50%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Weight	14	10.29%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Light	12	8.82%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Sharp	4	2.94%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Hot (Warm)	4	2.94%	391	31.66%	141	47.64%	13	56.52%
Blunt	3	2.21%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Flat	0	0	414	33.52%	0	0	0	0
Arid (Dry)	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	21.74%

Classification of therapeutic use	Tibetan medicine (n = 2104)		Traditional Chinese medicine (n = 3324)		Ayurveda (n = 5959)		Arabic Medicine (n = 1551)
Classification of therapeutic use	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage
p-value	——		1.5565 × 10^− 119***		2.8712 × 10^− 136***		3.508 × 10^− 85***
Special Diseases	520	24.71%	83	2.50%	191	3.21%	47	3.03%
Skin and subcutaneous tissue diseases	268	12.74%	416	12.52%	415	6.96%	100	6.45%
Certain infectious and parasitic diseases	227	10.79%	203	6.11%	440	7.38%	46	2.97%
Digestive system diseases	222	10.55%	345	10.38%	762	12.79%	382	24.63%
Symptoms, signs and clinical and laboratory abnormalities that cannot be classified elsewhere	192	9.13%	658	19.80%	1146	19.23%	130	8.38%
Injury, poisoning and certain other consequences of external causes	145	6.89%	144	4.33%	333	5.59%	63	4.06%
Diseases of the respiratory system	115	5.47%	190	5.72%	556	9.33%	177	11.41%
Genitourinary diseases	112	5.32%	218	6.56%	687	11.53%	227	14.64%
Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue	62	2.95%	201	6.05%	416	6.98%	113	7.29%
Eye and appendage diseases	49	2.33%	48	1.44%	70	1.17%	46	2.97%
Mental and behavioral disorders	47	2.23%	65	1.96%	112	1.88%	24	1.55%
Tumors	42	2.00%	24	0.72%	37	0.62%	15	0.97%
Diseases of the circulatory system	40	1.90%	84	2.53%	188	3.15%	40	2.58%
Neurological diseases	26	1.24%	95	2.86%	121	2.03%	82	5.29%
Pregnancy, childbirth and puerperium	13	0.62%	56	1.68%	19	0.32%	15	0.97%
Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs and certain disorders involving the immune mechanism	9	0.43%	62	1.87%	169	2.84%	7	0.45%
Ear and mastoid disease	7	0.33%	10	0.30%	39	0.65%	10	0.64%
Factors affecting health status and contact with health care providers	5	0.24%	366	11.01%	21	0.35%	5	0.32%
Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases	3	0.14%	56	1.68%	234	3.93%	20	1.29%
Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities	0	0.00%	0	0.00%	3	0.05%	0	0.00%
Specifically refers to sexual dysfunction, not caused by organic disorders or diseases	0	0.00%	0	0.00%	0	0.00%	2	0.13%

Habitats	Tibetan medicine		Traditional Chinese medicine		Ayurveda		Arabic Medicine
Habitats	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage
*p-value*	——		2.46 × 10^− 8***		——		——
Mountain Valley Hills	114	26.89%	347	48.40%	0	0	0	0
Wetlands and Wetland Side	64	15.09%	129	17.99%	0	0	0	0
Rocks	62	14.62%	39	5.44%	0	0	0	0
Artificial habitat	57	13.44%	87	12.13%	0	0	0	0
Prairie Meadows	49	11.56%	0	6.14%	0	0	0	0
Others	33	7.78%	14	1.95%	0	0	0	0
Woodland	23	5.42%	19	2.65%	0	0	0	0
Wild habitat	18	4.25%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Plains and flat land	2	0.47%	44	6.14%	0	0	0	0
Undergrowth	1	0.24%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Desert sand	1	0.24%	4	0.56%	0	0	0	0
Oceans and coasts	0	0	32	4.46%	0	0	0	0

Dosage forms	Tibetan medicine		Traditional Chinese medicine		Ayurveda		Arabic medicine
Dosage forms	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage
p-value	——		2.37 × 10^− 3*		5.36 × 10^− 2		2.01 × 10^− 11***
Decoction	41	28.67%	212	21.68%	138	23.19%	4	7.02%
Powders	32	22.38%	175	17.89%	192	32.27%	2	3.51%
Medicinal Wine	21	14.69%	111	11.35%	0	0	8	14.04%
Juice	14	9.79%	86	8.79%	49	8.24%	0	0
Paste	7	4.90%	127	12.99%	16	2.69%	0	0
Bath Additives/Fomentation Baths	5	3.50%	44	4.50%	0	0	14	24.56%
Oiling agent	5	3.50%	0	0	13	2.18%	19	33.33%
Plaster	4	2.80%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Electuary	3	2.10%	32	3.27%	20	3.36%	1	1.75%
Warming and pressing agent	2	1.40%	0	0	0	0	0	0
Cooking	0	0	22	2.25%	0	0	0	0
Abrasive	0	0	21	2.15%	0	0	0	0
Pills	0	0	53	5.42%	0	0	0	0
Tincture	0	0	0	0	89	14.96%	0	0
Granule	0	0	0	0	11	1.85%	0	0
Injections	0	0	0	0	8	1.34%	0	0
Sugar agent	0	0	0	0	8	1.34%	0	0
Fumigant	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	7.02%
Massage agent	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	3.51%
Acetum	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1.75%
Enema	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1.75%

Types of medicinal materials	Number of medicinal materials (species)	Examples of medicinal materials
Botanical medicinal materials	147	Abrus precatorius L., Acorus calamus L., Agastache rugosa (Fisch. & C.A.Mey.) Kuntze, Allium fistulosum L., Allium sativum L., Alpinia officinarum Hance, Alcea rosea L., Wurfbainia testacea (Ridl.) Škorničk. & A.D.Poulsen , Angelica sinensis (Oliv.) Diels, Arctium lappa L., Artemisia argyi H. Lév. & Vaniot, Asparagus cochinchinensis (Lour.) Merr., Astragalus mongholicus Bunge^#, Bidens pilosa L., Brassica rapa L., Cassia fistula L., Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik., Tribulus terrestris L., Camphora officinarum Boerh. ex Fabr., Cnidium monnieri (L.) Cusson^#, Terminalia chebula Retz., Phyllanthus emblica L., Terminalia bellirica (Gaertn.) Roxb.
Animal medicinal materials	55	Bos grunniens L., Bos taurus domesticus Gmelin, Capra hircus L, Cervus nippon Temminck, Equus asinus L. Lutra lutra (L.), Moschus moschiferus L., Ovis aries L., Passer montanus (L.), Pavo muticus L, Saiga tatarica (L.), Mylabris phalerata Pall, Sus scrofa domesticus L.
Mineral medicinal materials	38	Actinolite, Argentum, Auripigmentum, Vermillion, Copper, Iron, Red ochre, Magnet, Lithargyrum
Others	8	Sea foam, Old boots sole, Silk brocade

Types of medicinal materials	Number of medicinal materials (species)	Examples of medicinal materials
Botanical medicinal materials	79	Aconitum naviculare (Brühl) Stapf, Acorus calamus L., Justicia adhatoda L., Aegle marmelos (L.) Corrêa, Allium sativum L., Apium graveolens L., Aquilaria malaccensis Lam., Commiphora myrrha (T.Nees) Engl.^#, Bombax ceiba L.^#, Boswellia serrata Roxb., Brassica rapa L., Butea monosperma (Lam.) Kuntze, Guilandina bonduc L., Carthamus tinctorius L., Tribulus terrestris L., Cicer arietinum L., Coriandrum sativum L., Curcuma longa L., Terminalia chebula Retz., Phyllanthus emblica L., Terminalia bellirica (Gaertn.) Roxb
Animal medicinal materials	35	Selenarctos thibetanus G. Cuvier, Bos taurus L., Capra hircus L., Cervus nippon Temminck, Corvus corone L. , Cygnus cygnus, Equus asinus L., Hystrix hodgsoni Gray, Mustela sibirica Pallas, Ovis aries L.
Mineral medicinal materials	21	Iron, Alum, Auripigmentum, Black salt, Copper, Aurum, Red ochre, Realgar
Others	5	Thin porridge, Thick congee, Brown sugar wine, Mead

Family name	Number of medicinal materials (species)	Percentage	Examples of medicinal materials
Asteraceae	17	8.46%	Arctium lappa L., Artemisia argyi H. Lév. & Vaniot, Artemisia capillaris Thunb., Artemisia sieversiana Ehrhart ex Willd., Dolomiaea costus (Falc.) Kasana & A.K.Pandey, Bidens pilosa L., Carthamus tinctorius L., Cirsium arvense var. integrifolium Wimm. & Grab.^#, Cirsium japonicum DC.^#, Ixeris chinensis (Thunb.) Nakai, Sonchus oleraceus L., Taraxacum mongolicum Hand.-Mazz., Tussilago farfara L., Xanthium strumarium L.^#
Fabaceae	14	6.97%	Abrus precatorius L., Astragalus mongholicus Bunge^#, Butea monosperma (Lam.) Kuntze, Senna tora (L.) Roxb., Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet^#, Entada phaseoloides (L.) Merr., Glycine max (L.) Merr., Medicago sativa L., Mucuna sempervirens Hemsl., Lathyrus oleraceus L., Sophora flavescens Aiton^#, Vicia faba L., Vigna angularis (Willd.) Ohwi & H.Ohashi^#
Apiaceae	9	4.48%	Angelica dahurica (Hoffm.) Benth. & Hook.f. ex Franch. & Sav.^#, Angelica sinensis(Oliv.)Diels., Apium graveolens L., Cnidium monnieri (L.) Cusson^#, Coriandrum sativum L., Cuminum cyminum L., Foeniculum vulgare Mill., Heracleum hemsleyanum Diels, Conioselinum anthriscoides (H.Boissieu) Pimenov & Kljuykov^#
Brassicaceae	9	4.48%	Apium graveolens L., Brassica rapa L., Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik., Descurainia sophia (L.) Webb ex Prantl, Lepidium apetalum Willd. , Sinapis alba L., Thlaspi arvense L.
Liliaceae	6	2.99%	Allium fistulosum L., Allium macrostemon Bunge, Allium sativum L., Asparagus cochinchinensis (Lour.) Merr., Polygonatum sibiricum Redouté
Poaceae	6	2.99%	Hordeum vulgare L., Imperata cylindrica (L.) Raeusch., Oryza sativa L., Setaria italica (L.) Beauv., Triticum aestivum L.
Rosaceae	5	2.49%	Prunus persica (L.) Batsch, Prunus armeniaca L., Chaenomeles cathayensis (Hemsl.) C.K.Schneid., Pseudocydonia sinensis (Dum.Cours.) C.K.Schneid., Malus domestica (Suckow) Borkh.
Zingiberaceae	4	1.99%	Alpinia officinarum Hance, Wurfbainia testacea (Ridl.) Škorničk. & A.D.Poulsen, Curcuma longa L., Zingiber officinale Rosc.
Felidae	4	1.99%	Felis catus L., Panthera pardus L., Panthera tigris L., Viverricula indica
Bovidae	4	1.99%	Bos taurus L., Ovis aries L.

Medicinal materials	Tibetan medicine dosage	Traditional Chinese Medicine dosage
Acorus calamus L	4.2 g	1.6625–212.8 g
Allium sativum L.	200 g	5.54–53.2 g
Wurfbainia testacea (Ridl.) Škorničk. & A.D.Poulsen	18.75 g	9.975–53.2 g
Coptis chinensis Franch.	50 g	1.084–212.8 g
Coriandrum sativum L.	6.25 g	106.4 g
Equus asinus Linnaeus	18.75 g	3.325–212.8 g
Erronea erronea (Linnaeus)	6.25 g	13.3 g
Piper longum L.	12.5–200 g	6.65–53.2 g
Malva verticillata L.	6.25 g	6.65–53.2 g
Moschus sifanicum Prze-walski	2.08–25 g	0.5542–133 g
Paeonia lactiflora Pall.	25 g	2.22–212.8 g
Ghee of Poephagus grunniens	500–1500 g	39.9 g
Piper nigrum L.	6.25–12.5 g	6.65–53.2 g
Plantago asiatica L.	6.25 g	39.9 g
Punica granatum L.	50–56.25 g	3.325–53.2 g
Rubia cordifolia L.	6.25 g	13.3–39.9 g
Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels	6.25 g	53.2 g
Zingiber officinale Rosc.	6.25–50 g	0.5542–212.8 g
Brachyura	6.25 g	6.65–13.3 g
Cinnabar	6.25 g	6.65–79.8 g
Halite	12.5–25 g	3.325–39.9 g
Mirabilitum	6.25–25 g	0.5–212.8 g
Sulfur	50–200 g	6.65–53.2 g
Ursus thibetanus	6.25 g	13.3–26.6 g
Calcite	6.25 g	3.325–638.4 g

Medicinal materials	Tibetan medicine dosage	Ayurveda dosage
Acorus calamus L	4.2 g	1–5 g
Allium sativum L.	200 g, ten petals	2–15 g, 1-3petals
Cassia fistula L.	6.25 g	2–15 g
Coriandrum sativum L.	6.25 g	3–6 g
Cuminum cyminum L.	6.25 g	1–5 g
Inula racemosa Hook. f.	6.25 g	0.5–6 g
Mangifera indica L.	6.25 g	1–50 g
Myristica fragrans Houtt.	6.255 g	0.5–6 g
Piper longum L.	12.5–200 g	1–5 g
Piper nigrum L.	6.25–12.5 g	1–5 g
Rubia cordifolia L.	6.25 g	0.5–10 g
Terminalia chebula Retz.	4.2 g, 12-20grains	0.25–10 g
Zingiber officinale Rosc.	6.25–50 g	0.5–5 g
Abrus precatorius L.	1–6 g	1–6 g

Common medicinal materials	Tibetan medicine dosage	Arabic medicine dosage
Zingiber officinale Rosc.	6.25–50 g	35.7 g
Myristica fragrans Houtt.	6.255 g	14.9 g
Terminalia chebula Retz.	4.2 g	8.9 g
Dolomiaea costus (Falc.) Kasana & A.K.Pandey	6.25 g	1.5–17.85 g
Elettaria cardamomum (L.) Maton	6.25 g	3–14.9 g
Mangifera indica L.	6.25 g	6 g
Piper nigrum L.	6.25–12.5 g	1.5–131 g

Types of medicinal materials	Number of medicinal materials (species)	Examples of medicinal materials
Botanical medicinal materials	87	Hyoscyamus niger L., Allium sativum L., Sinapis alba L, Vitis vinifera L., Juniperus rigida Siebold & Zucc., Curcuma longa L., Alpinia officinarum Hance, Carum carvi L., Commiphora myrrha (T.Nees) Engl.^#, Trigonella foenum-graecum L., Hordeum vulgare L., Triticum aestivum L., Raphanus sativus L., Melilotus suaveolens Ledeb., Malva sylvestris L., Plantago asiatica L., Terminalia chebula Retz., Phyllanthus emblica L., Terminalia bellirica (Gaertn.) Roxb
Animal medicinal materials	20	Apis florea Fabricius, Ovis aries L., Equus asinus L., Corallium rubrum (L.), Hystrix hodgsoni Gray, Panthera pardus (L.), Saiga tatarica (L.), Gekko swinhonis Günther
Mineral medicinal materials	19	Spring water, Rainwater, Well water, Iron, Alum, Lithargyrum, Cinnabar, Borax, Copper
Others	2	Mead, Wine

Therapeutic uses	Tibetan medicine (n=604)		Traditional Chinese medicine (n=1562)
Therapeutic uses	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage
*p-value*	6.9110^-31**
Special Diseases	178	29.47%	189	12.10%
Injury, poisoning and certain other consequences of external causes	80	13.25%	140	8.96%
Digestive system diseases	64	10.60%	93	5.95%
Certain infectious and parasitic diseases	51	8.44%	103	6.59%
Skin and subcutaneous tissue diseases	43	7.12%	248	15.88%
Genitourinary diseases	42	6.95%	98	6.27%
Symptoms, signs and clinical and laboratory abnormalities that cannot be classified elsewhere	39	6.46%	185	11.84%
Diseases of the respiratory system	26	4.30%	108	6.91%
Diseases of the circulatory system	18	2.98%	30	1.92%
Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue	13	2.15%	94	6.02%
Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs and certain disorders involving the immune mechanism	11	1.82%	43	2.75%
Eye and appendage diseases	9	1.49%	32	2.05%
Tumors	9	1.49%	8	0.51%
Neurological diseases	6	0.99%	73	4.67%
Mental and behavioral disorders	5	0.83%	40	2.56%
Factors affecting health status and contact with health care providers	4	0.66%	17	1.09%
Pregnancy, childbirth and puerperium	3	0.50%	40	2.56%
Ear and mastoid disease	2	0.33%	7	0.45%
Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases	1	0.17%	14	0.90%

PERMALINK

Quantitative comparison of similarities and differences in medicinal materials used by Tibetan medicine and the three traditional medicines (6th−10th Century AD)

Jingwen Zhang

Ran Li

Zhuoma Sanzhi

Lili Xu

Yiye Li

Ting Zhang

Zhongyuan Wang

Yunhui Shen

Yingxia Tang

Haowen Li

Min Wang

Yushuang Shou

Liping Luo

Yinglian Song

Wanyue Chen

Zhuoma Garang

Rizhun Luo

Tingting Kuang

Xinyang Song

Yongzhong Zeweng

Zhang Wang

Abstract

Background

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Supplementary Information

Background

Materials and methods

Literature resources

Database construction

Fig. 1.

Classification characteristics

Statistical analysis

General comparison of the used medicinal materials by Tibetan medicine and the three traditional medicines

Comparison of types of medicinal materials

Table 1.

Fig. 2.

Comparison of families of medicinal materials

Table 2.

Fig. 3.

Comparison of genera of medicinal materials

Table 3.

Fig. 4.

Comparison of medicinal parts of medicinal materials

Table 4.

Fig. 5.

Comparison of taste of medicinal materials

Table 5.

Fig. 6.

Comparison of medicinal properties of medicinal materials

Table 6.

Comparison of therapeutic use of medicinal materials

Table 7.

Comparison of habitats of medicinal materials

Table 8.

Comparison of dosage forms of medicinal materials

Table 9.

Fig. 7.

Comparison of the use of toxic medicinal materials

Comparison of processing conditions of medicinal materials

Comparative study of medicinal materials co-used by Tibetan medicine and three traditional medicines

Scale of total medicinal materials

Fig. 8.

Types of the co-used medicinal materials

Types of medicinal materials co-used by Tibetan medicine and Traditional Chinese medicine

Table 10.

Types of medicinal materials co-used by Tibetan medicine and ayurveda

Table 11.

Types of medicinal materials co-used by Tibetan medicine and Arabic medicine

Table 12.

Comparison of families and genera of the co-used medicinal materials

Comparison of families and genera of medicinal materials co-used by Tibetan medicine and traditional Chinese medicine

Table 13.

Fig. 9.

Comparison of families and genera of medicinal materials co-used by Tibetan medicine and Ayurveda

Comparison of families and genera of medicinal materials co-used by Tibetan medicine and Arabic medicine