A Systematic Quantitative Analysis of the Literature of the High Variability in Ginseng (<i>Panax</i> spp.)
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
Herbs have experienced an unprecedented surge in popularity (1). This has occurred in the absence of adequate safety and efficacy evidence, prompting calls for rigorous clinical assessments (2). Complicating these assessments is compositional variability. This is a concern with one of the most popular herbs, ginseng (3). The principal reference components, to which pharmacological effects have been attributed, are its ginsenosides (steroidal glycosides). We undertook a systematic quantitative analysis of the literature to assess the coefficient of variation (CV) in ginsenosides across species, assay technique, and ginsenoside type. The PubMed (1966-present), EMBASE (1980-present), HealthSTAR (1975-present), Cochrane library (issue 2, 2002), and AGRICOLA (1979-present) databases were searched using “ginsenosides AND (chromatography OR HPLC OR HPTLC OR TLC OR LC OR DCC OR GC OR ELISA OR UV OR MS OR NMR OR ELSD)”. One-hundred eleven articles were identified. Two reviewers applied three inclusion criteria: publication quality: peer-reviewed; end point: quantitative ginsenoside concentrations; and ginseng …
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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