Ginkgo biloba Extract EGb 761® in Dementia: Intent-to-treat Analyses of a 24-week, Multi-center, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".