Key bibliometric facts

• Works: 56 (OpenAlex) — indicates steady productivity with concentrated collaboration on natural-product/formulation studies.
• Citations: 621 total; several papers (e.g., Food Chemistry 2019) have tens–>hundreds of citations, driving impact.
• h-index: 13 — consistent with a researcher producing several well‑cited experimental papers (mid‑career profile).

Representative high-impact papers (selected)

Qualitative scientific critique — strengths

• Interdisciplinary experimental portfolio: repeated combination of phytochemistry, nanoformulation and microbiology/antitumor assays indicates practical laboratory competency across methods (formulation, GC/MS/HPLC, in vitro antimicrobial and cytotoxicity assays).
• Several well-cited, peer‑reviewed publications including in mid‑to high‑tier journals (Food Chemistry, J. Nat. Prod., Scientific Reports), showing visibility beyond purely local outlets.
• Collaborative output and co-authorship on both experimental and review papers — suggests capacity to work across teams and contribute to translational projects.

Qualitative scientific critique — limitations & blind spots

• Predominantly in vitro work: many papers report formulation and in vitro antimicrobial/antitumor tests; translation to in vivo efficacy, pharmacokinetics or safety is limited or absent, which constrains claims of therapeutic potential.
• Frequent multi-author middle authorship: while collaborative, assessing intellectual leadership requires checking position (first/last) per paper; some high-impact pieces list her as middle author.
• Potential for positive-publication bias in natural-product fields; many studies demonstrate activity in vitro but few provide mechanistic molecular dissection or independent replication across models.
• Geographic/institutional concentration: multiple works arise from the same university groups — strong local network but limited evidence of broad cross‑institution leadership (though there are international coauthors in some works).

Case example: lapachol paper (preprint/2025 Scientific Reports entry provided)

A recent study on lapachol (Lapachol interferes with the cell cycle ...) reports dose‑dependent cytotoxicity, cell‑cycle arrest and lncRNA modulation in three bladder cancer cell lines (RT4, J82, T24), with preserved fibroblast viability — solid in vitro experimental design (MTT, clonogenic assays, flow cytometry, RT‑qPCR) but correctly acknowledged limitations: in vitro only, limited lncRNA set, and absence of in vivo validation.

Overall assessment (evidence-weighted)

Evidence indicates Tatiane Roquete Amparo is an active experimental researcher in natural products, formulation and in vitro antimicrobial/antitumor testing with several well‑cited papers that demonstrate technical competence and applied focus. The body of work shows moderate-to-strong regional impact and a growing citation footprint, but is primarily preclinical and in vitro — appropriate next steps for stronger biological claims would be mechanistic molecular studies, broader independent replication, and in vivo or translational validation.

What would change this conclusion (falsification conditions)

• Publication of rigorous in vivo efficacy and toxicity studies for key compounds/formulations would materially increase translational credibility.
• Clear first/last author papers demonstrating mechanistic molecular pathways, reproducible in independent labs, would shift the evaluation toward higher scientific leadership and rigor.
• Meta-analytical evidence that many formulation/essential-oil results fail replication would lower confidence in applied claims (no such broad replication evidence currently cited).

Actionable suggestions for the author to raise scientific strength

1. Prioritize mechanistic follow-up (targeted molecular pathways, omics where feasible) on the most promising compounds to move beyond phenotype assays.
2. Plan and publish in vivo pharmacokinetic/toxicity studies for lead formulations to support translational claims.
3. Lead more first/last author studies and multicenter replication efforts to demonstrate scientific leadership and reproducibility.
4. Provide raw data and code (e.g., GitHub/Zenodo) and adhere to reporting standards to increase reproducibility and trust.

Tools & links

OpenAlex profile (source of bibliometrics): https://openalex.org/A5015843219

Representative DOIs: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.02.078, 10.1021/acs.jnatprod.8b00870, 10.1038/s41598-020-79257-3