From type 2 diabetes to antioxidant activity: a systematic review of the safety and efficacy of common and cassia cinnamon barkThis article is one of a selection of papers published in this special issue (part 1 of 2) on the Safety and Efficacy of Natural Health Products.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Common (Cinnamomum verum, C. zeylanicum) and cassia (C. aromaticum) cinnamon have a long history of use as spices and flavouring agents. A number of pharmacological and clinical effects have been observed with their use. The objective of this study was to systematically review the scientific literature for preclinical and clinical evidence of safety, efficacy, and pharmacological activity of common and cassia cinnamon. Using the principles of evidence-based practice, we searched 9 electronic databases and compiled data according to the grade of evidence found. One pharmacological study on antioxidant activity and 7 clinical studies on various medical conditions were reported in the scientific literature including type 2 diabetes (3), Helicobacter pylori infection (1), activation of olfactory cortex of the brain (1), oral candidiasis in HIV (1), and chronic salmonellosis (1). Two of 3 randomized clinical trials on type 2 diabetes provided strong scientific evidence that cassia cinnamon demonstrates a therapeutic effect in reducing fasting blood glucose by 10.3%-29%; the third clinical trial did not observe this effect. Cassia cinnamon, however, did not have an effect at lowering glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c). One randomized clinical trial reported that cassia cinnamon lowered total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides; the other 2 trials, however, did not observe this effect. There was good scientific evidence that a species of cinnamon was not effective at eradicating H. pylori infection. Common cinnamon showed weak to very weak evidence of efficacy in treating oral candidiasis in HIV patients and chronic salmonellosis.
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".