MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W188790921 · doi:10.1055/s-2003-45117

Ginkgo biloba Extract EGb 761® in Dementia: Intent-to-treat Analyses of a 24-week, Multi-center, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Randomized Trial

2003· article· en· W188790921 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacopsychiatry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGinkgo biloba and Cashew Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaceboDementiaGinkgo bilobaMedicineInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialPopulationPsychologyCognitionMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPsychiatryDiseasePharmacologyPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1996, Kanowski et al. reported about the beneficial effects of ginkgo biloba special extract EGb 761 (240 mg/day) in outpatients with pre-senile and senile primary degenerative dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT) and multi-infarct dementia (MID) of mild to moderate severity. The comparison of the results of this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multi-center study with other dementia studies is hampered by the fact that only the responder analysis of the per-protocol (PP) population, which was pre-specified in the protocol as confirmatory analysis, has been published in detail so far. Moreover, cognitive functioning was measured using the Syndrom-Kurztest (SKT), whereas results of other studies are based on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-cog). Therefore, the conventional intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis of this study is provided with an estimation of ADAS-cog scores based on measured SKT scores. After 24 weeks of treatment, the ITT analysis of the SKT and estimated ADAS-cog scores revealed a mean decrease in the total score by -2.1 (95 % CI: -2.7; -1.5) points and -2.7 (95 % CI: -3.5; -1.9) points, respectively, for the EGb 761 group, which indicates an improvement in cognitive function. On the contrary, the placebo group exhibited only a minimal change of -1.0 (95 % CI: -1.6; -0.3) and -1.3 (95 % CI: -2.0; -0.4) points, respectively. The changes from baseline differed significantly between treatment groups by 1.1 (SKT) and 1.4 (estimated ADAS-cog) points, respectively (P = 0.01). The Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGI, Item 2) favored the EGb 761 group with a mean difference of 0.4 points (P = 0.007). Changes in the rating related to activities of daily living (Nürnberger-Alters-Beobachtungs-Skala, NAB) showed a favorable trend for EGb 761R. A subgroup analysis regarding patients with DAT yielded comparable results. Using a decrease of at least 4 points on the estimated ADAS-cog scores as cutoff criterion for treatment response, 35 % of EGb 761-treated patients were considered responders versus only 19 % for the placebo group (P = 0.01). The results of this ITT analysis substantiate the outcomes previously obtained with a responder analysis of the per-protocol population and confirm that EGb 761 improves cognitive function in a clinically relevant manner in patients suffering from dementia. The therapeutic effect is in line with the outcome of another EGb 761 study conducted in the U.S.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it