A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Two Doses of Ginkgo Biloba Extract in Dementia of the Alzheimers Type
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Previous studies of Ginkgo biloba extract (GbE) in patients with various forms of cognitive impairment or dementia have shown promising results. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical efficacy of GbE in mild to moderate dementia of the Alzheimer type. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter trial. SETTING: Outpatient clinics of universities and private research centers specialized in dementia. PATIENTS: 513 outpatients with uncomplicated dementia of the Alzheimer's type scoring 10 to 24 on the Mini-Mental State Examination and less than 4 on the modified Hachinski Ischemic Score, free of other serious illnesses and not requiring continuous treatment with any psychoactive drug. INTERVENTION: 26-week treatment with GbE at daily doses of 120 mg or 240 mg or placebo. MAIN OUTCOMES: Cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog), Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC). RESULTS: There were no significant between-group differences for the whole sample. There was little cognitive and functional decline of the placebo-treated patients, however. For a subgroup of patients with neuropsychiatric symptoms there was a greater decline of placebo-treated patients and significantly better cognitive performance and global assessment scores for the patients on GbE. CONCLUSION: The trial did not show efficacy of GbE, however, the lack of decline of the placebo patients may have compromised the sensitivity of the trial to detect a treatment effect. Thus, the study remains inconclusive with respect to the efficacy of GbE.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it