Ginkgo biloba for mild to moderate dementia in a community setting: a pragmatic, randomised, parallel‐group, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial
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
OBJECTIVES: Doubt over the cost-effectiveness of the cholinesterase inhibitors in dementia has renewed interest in alternative treatments such as Ginkgo biloba. We aimed to determine the effectiveness and the safety profile of Ginkgo biloba for treating early stage dementia in a community setting. METHODS: We conducted a community-based, pragmatic, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial where participants were given a standardised extract of Ginkgo biloba (120 mg daily) or a placebo control for 6 months. Our primary outcomes were cognitive functioning (ADAS-Cog) and participant and carer-rated quality of life (QOL-AD). RESULTS: We recruited 176 participants, mainly through general practices. In the ANCOVA model with baseline score as a co-variate (n = 176), Ginkgo did not have a significant effect on outcome at six months on either the ADAS-Cog score (p = 0.392), the participant-rated QOL-AD score (p = 0.787) nor the carer-rated QOL-AD score (p = 0.222). CONCLUSION: We found no evidence that a standard dose of high purity Ginkgo biloba confers benefit in mild-moderate dementia over 6 months.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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