A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Ginseng Consumption on the Immune Response to a Moderate Exercise Stress Protocol in Non-Athletic Women~!2008-07-27~!2009-04-04~!2010-07-06~!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Ginseng is a popular herbal remedy that has been proposed to increase resistance to stress and enhance immune function.Regular moderate exercise results in an acute physiological stress that affects immune function.Objective: This study was conducted to investigate the effects of daily consumption of a standardized ginsenosidecontaining North American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) extract on immune function before, immediately after, and during recovery from moderate exercise in healthy, non-athletic women. Research design and methods:A double-blinded randomized trial was conducted where healthy female subjects (n=12) were randomized to receive either ginseng (1125 mg/d; n=6) or placebo (n=6) for four weeks.An exercise test was performed and peripheral blood collected before and after the four-week treatment period.Immune assays (phenotype analysis, neutrophil function, lymphocyte proliferation and natural killer cell cytotoxicity) were performed before, immediately after, and 30 minutes post-exercise.Results: Ginseng-treated subjects had a lower (P<0.05)proportion of antigen mature CD4+CD45RO+ peripheral blood cells before and after exercise, and experienced a sustained reduction (P<0.05) in the proportions of total CD28+ and CD4+CD28+ cells during recovery from exercise.The ginseng group had significantly higher mitogen-stimulated neutrophil function (oxidative burst) at all exercise protocol time points (P<0.05).There were no effects of ginseng on the proportions of other immune cells, lymphocyte proliferation, or natural killer cell cytotoxicity in peripheral blood. Conclusions:The consumption of ginseng for a four-week period improved the ability of neutrophils to respond to stimulation and produced changes consistent with less T cell activation after an acute exercise stress.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".