The Efficacy and Safety of a Patent Pending Combination of Ginger and Goldenrod Extracts on the Management of Cold Symptoms: A Randomized, Double-Blind Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: In a randomized, double-blind, exploratory, active-controlled trial, the efficacy and safety of a patent-pending combination of Ginger and Goldenrod extracts (BDI-630) in alleviating cold symptoms in community-dwelling adults was compared to a combination of standardized amounts of Echinacea (EC) components. Methods: 44 healthy adults, experiencing new onset of cold symptoms were randomly assigned to receive either BDI-630 (900 mg) or EC (500 mg) twice daily for 10 days. The severity of cold symptoms and the quality of life was assessed by self-reporting of subjects using the Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey (WURSS-21? 2004). Results: The intent-to-treat population (ITT) consisted of 44 subjects (n = 22 for BDI-630; n = 22 for EC). The modified ITT (mITT) population consisted of 40 subjects, excluding four subjects with major protocol deviations related to inclusion/exclusion criteria and/or use of prohibited drugs from the efficacy analysis (n = 3 for BDI-630 and n = 1 for EC). Results indicated a sig-nificant difference between the two groups: the superiority of BDI-630 over EC was particularly noticeable between Day 1 and Day 7, as demonstrated by a 14-fold difference of the mean percentage of change of total score from baseline in the mITT population. Adverse events (AEs) following the intake of BDI-630 were mostly limited to mild gastrointestinal intolerance in less than 10% of the subjects. Conclusions: BDI-630 was shown to be more effective than EC in alleviating cold symptoms in the adult population, particularly during the first 7 days of treatment. BDI-630 was very well tolerated by all subjects.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".