Ethnopharmacological relevance: Traditional medicine (TM) is used worldwide, yet its global footprint, in terms of both scientific research and public engagement, remains poorly quantified. While thousands of medicinal plant species have been documented, it is unclear which ones receive the most academic attention, which ones are most sought after by the general public, and how these two dimensions relate to each other. This lack of integrated understanding limits the evidence-based integration of TM into modern healthcare systems and may leave widely used but under-investigated remedies neglected.This study is firmly grounded in ethnopharmacological theory by systematically documenting and quantifying the global landscape of TM uses. Rather than treating TM as a mere source of bioactive compounds, our work engages directly with the cultural, historical, and practical dimensions of medicinal plant knowledge as it exists across diverse societies. The identification of "orphan" traditional medicines, widely used in community practice but severely under-investigated scientifically, represents a direct contribution to evidence-based integration of TM into healthcare systems, which is a core objective of ethnopharmacological research. Furthermore, by mapping the gap between academic prioritization and public engagement across 11 languages representing approximately 5.6 billion people, this study provides a global empirical foundation for understanding how traditional medical knowledge is preserved, transmitted, and transformed in the digital era, a question of fundamental importance to the ethnopharmacological community, including academics and enterprise.Aim of the review: To quantitatively map the global patterns of research focus and public interest for a large set of traditional medicines, identify the most extensively studied species, compare them with those most frequently searched online, and characterize the gaps between academic prioritization and real-world community use.Materials and methods: A panel of global TM experts compiled an initial list of 3,212 medicinal substances from major pharmacopoeias and authoritative sources across 34 countries. After taxonomic standardization, 2,567 distinct species were retained. Bibliometric analysis was performed using PubMed to retrieve citation counts for each species, with attention to geographical origin, disease associations, and temporal trends (2015-2024). Public interest was assessed by querying the dominant search engines in 11 languages representing the ten most populous countries (total population approximately 5.6 billion). Search volumes were collected, validated for consistency, and normalized by population. Hierarchical clustering and comparative analyses were used to stratify species by growth trajectories and to identify overlap between high-citation and high-search species.Results: Academic output was heavily concentrated: the top 20 most studied species (e.g., Panax ginseng C.A.Mey., Salvia miltiorrhiza Bunge, Withania somnifera (L.) Dunal) accounted for nearly 20% of the total literature, despite representing less than 1% of the analyzed species. China and India dominated research contributions, followed by several European and Middle Eastern countries.Temporal analysis revealed four distinct citation growth clusters; C. sativa and M. oleifera showed the steepest increase (mean +362.4%) during the COVID-19 pandemic. In contrast, public searches across the 11 languages totaled over 6.4 billion (average 1.13 searches per capita), with English showing the highest per-capita activity (4.57) and Hindi the lowest (0.01).Only five species, including N. sativa, A. sativum, C. sativa, C. longa, and A. vera, ranked highly in both academic and public domains. Widely searched but low-citation remedies included staple crops (maize, rice, wheat) and common spices (peppermint, olive, rosemary), identifying a class of "orphan" traditional medicines.Conclusions: This first large-scale quantification reveals a pronounced divergence between academically studied and publicly used traditional medicines. While research is concentrated on a few species with historical medical importance, public interest is dominated by accessible, everyday items. The identified "orphan" remedies, namely those highly utilized yet under-investigated, represent critical opportunities for future research. Aligning scientific inquiry with public practice is essential to support evidence-based integration of TM into healthcare systems and to preserve the cultural and medicinal heritage embedded in traditional pharmacopeias.