Comparison of ginsenosides Rg1 and Rb1 for their effects on improving scopolamine‐induced learning and memory impairment in mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rg1 and Rb1 are two major active compounds of ginseng that facilitate learning and memory. The present study aimed to compare the nootropic effects of Rg1 and Rb1 in a scopolamine induced dementia mice model. After 6 and 12 mg/kg of Rg1 and Rb1 intraperitoneal administration to mice for 7 days, their effects were assessed using the step-down passive avoidance (SD) and the Morris water maze (MWM) tests, the acetylcholinesterase (AChE) activity, acetylcholine (ACh) content and serotonin (5-HT) level in the hippocampus were analysed after SD and MWM tests. The results showed that Rg1 and Rb1 ameliorated cognition-deficiency in mice with dementia. Rg1 showed stronger effects than Rb1 on escape acquisition in MWM. Both Rg1 and Rb1 increased ACh levels in the hippocampus, but Rg1 inhibited AChE activity while Rb1 had no effect on AChE activity. Both Rg1 and Rb1 inhibited the decrease of 5-HT induced by scopolamine, but Rb1 was more active than the same dose of Rg1. These results demonstrate that multiple administrations of Rg1 and Rb1 are effective in improving memory deficiency induced by scopolamine. Rg1 appears to be more potent than Rb1 in improving acquisition impairment, and the two ginsenosides may act through different mechanisms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".