Efficacy and Safety of Red Ginseng Extract Powder in Patients with Erectile Dysfunction: Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of red ginseng extract powder (OKBT) for treating erectile dysfunction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-nine adult patients with mild to moderate erectile dysfunction of various etiologies were randomized to receive placebo or red ginseng extract powder. The red ginseng extract powder used in the present study was named OKBT. The primary efficacy parameter was response to the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) erectile function domain at baseline and week 8. Other IIEF domain scores were evaluated as secondary parameters. For safety evaluation, we performed history taking, physical examination, clinical laboratory tests, and hormonal tests at baseline and week 8. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the patients' characteristics between the 2 groups. After 8 weeks of administration, primary efficacy (erectile function domain) and all secondary efficacy domains were significantly improved in the OKBT group compared with the placebo group (p<0.05). Notably, even the domain related to sexual desire, frequency and degree of sexual desire, was also improved in the OKBT group (p<0.001). There were no significant adverse reactions with OKBT administration, and there were also no significant differences in the results of laboratory tests between the 2 groups after administration. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that red ginseng extract powder can be used as an alternative remedy for Korean men suffering from mild to moderate erectile dysfunction
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".