Ginkgo biloba extract for essential hypertension: A systemic review
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
BACKGROUND: Ginkgo biloba extract (GBE), a traditional natural herbal product, is often used in the treatment of essential hypertension (EH) as complementary therapy in China and European countries. AIM: To critically assess the current clinical evidence of efficacy and safety of GBE for EH. METHODS: 7 electronic databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, VIP, CBM, Wanfang data, and CNKI) were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of GBE for EH. Methodological quality was assessed independently using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. RESULTS: A total of 9 RCTs with 1012 hypertensive patients were identified and reviewed. Most RCTs were of high risk of bias with flawed study design and poor methodological quality. 6 trials demonstrated potential positive effect of GBE as complementary therapy on BP reduction when compared with antihypertensive drug therapy; however, it was not associated with a statistically significant effect on both SBP and DBP reduction in 3 other trials. Despite the positive findings, there were so many methodological limitations and significant clinical heterogeneity. Most of the trials did not report adverse effects, and the safety of GBE is still uncertain. CONCLUSION: No confirmative conclusions on the efficacy and safety of GBE for EH could be drawn. More rigorous trials are warranted to support their clinical use.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it