Safety and efficacy of a Labisia pumila var alata water extract on sexual well being and lipid profile of pre- and postmenopausal women: A randomized double-blind pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study investigated the safety and efficacy of Labisia pumila (LP) water extract on sexual health, lipid profile and inflammatory markers in 36 healthy pre-and post-menopausal North American women. Participants were randomized to either LP (200 mg) or placebo for 12 weeks. The female sexual function index (FSFI) and short form-36 health survey (SF-36) were completed, and lipid profiles, anti-inflammatory markers, urinary antioxidants and safety parameters were assessed. There were no significant differences in FSFI and SF-36 scores after 12 weeks. Compared to placebo, women on Labisia pumila trended towards a reduction in total cholesterol after 12 weeks (p=0.077). Urinary 8-isoprostane concentrations from baseline to week 12 decreased for both groups, with women on L. pumila demonstrating a greater decrease (Δ= -144.4nmol/L) versus placebo (Δ= -125.9nmol/L). Significant decreases in serum IL-6 from baseline to week 6 were observed in Labisia pumila and placebo (p=0.006 and p=0.012 respectively) but these differences were not sustained through week 12. LP demonstrated a trend towards an improvement in TC, urinary 8-isoprostane and significant within group improvement in IL-6 and IL-1β suggesting a role for LP in improving inflammation. Future research should focus on older subjects that are sexually dysfunctional. Key words: Labisia pumila, women’s health, randomized double-blind trial, female sexual function index, blood lipid profile, cytokines.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".