Effects of Korean Red Ginseng (Panax ginseng C.A. Mayer) and Its Isolated Ginsenosides and Polysaccharides on Arterial Stiffness in Healthy Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies indicate a role of Korean red ginseng (KRG) in the modulation of vascular function; however, clinical evidence is scarce. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the effect of KRG root on peripheral blood pressure (BP) and augmentation index (AI), an emerging method to assess cardiovascular risk beyond conventional BP measurements. Furthermore, in an attempt to elucidate which of the major components of KRG is responsible for these effects, the ginsenoside and polysaccharide fractions isolated from the same KRG root were also investigated. METHODS: The study was designed as an acute randomized, controlled, double blind, crossover trial. A total of 17 healthy fasted individuals (gender: 9 males:8 females, age: 30 +/- 9 years, body mass index: 25 +/- 3 kg/m(2), systolic BP (SBP): 110 +/- 10.1, diastolic BP (DBP): 65 +/- 7 mm Hg) received, on separate occasions, four treatments consisting of: 3 g of either placebo, KRG root, or a KRG root bioequivalent dose of ginsenoside or polysaccharide fractions. BP and AI were measured by applanation tonometry at baseline, 1, 2, and 3 h post-treatment. RESULTS: Compared to placebo, 3 g of KRG significantly lowered radial AI by 4.6% (P = 0.045), whereas the ginsenoside fraction comparably decreased AI by 4.8% (P = 0.057), and no effect was observed with the polysaccharides. There were no differences in BP between treatments. CONCLUSION: Although preliminary, this study is the first to demonstrate that KRG may improve arterial stiffness as measured by AI. In addition, it appears that ginsenosides may be the principal pharmacologically active component of the root, rather than the polysaccharide fraction. This study supports the results seen with KRG in the preclinical studies and warrants further investigation on acute and long-term endothelial parameters.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".