North American Ginseng Exerts a Neutral Effect on Blood Pressure in Individuals With Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An early observational study suggested that ginseng could elevate blood pressure. This caused concern because 4.5% of American adults use ginseng, with a popular choice being North American ginseng. To date, North American ginseng lacks hemodynamic evaluation; therefore, we conducted a randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial to investigate its effect on blood pressure in 16 hypertensive individuals (mean+/-SD age 61.1+/-8.1 years; systolic/diastolic blood pressure 132.4+/-12.8/83.3+/-8.1 mm Hg; 13 on antihypertensives). We used 6 batches of North American ginseng root that varied in quality and ginsenoside content, representing the spectrum of this ginseng on the market. On 8 mornings, each participant was fitted with an ambulatory blood pressure monitor, which measured blood pressure during a 30-minute baseline period. Each participant then consumed in a randomized and double-blind fashion 3 g of encapsulated treatment: placebo (on 2 mornings) or powdered North American ginseng (on 6 mornings). After treatment, blood pressure was measured every 10 minutes for 160 minutes, and its change at each post-treatment time point relative to baseline was determined per individual and averaged, and the mean was obtained for the overall 160-minute period. None of the North American ginsengs or their mean differed from placebo in their effect on overall (160 minutes) mean blood pressure change. None affected blood pressure versus placebo at the 10-minute intervals; but their mean versus placebo increased systolic and diastolic blood pressure at 140 and 160 minutes, respectively, and lowered diastolic blood pressure at 100 minutes. The findings together suggested that North American ginseng exerts a neutral acute effect on blood pressure in hypertensive individuals.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".