Long-Term Intake of North American Ginseng Has No Effect on 24-Hour Blood Pressure and Renal Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ginseng is consumed by 10% to 20% of adults in Asia and by up to 5% in Western countries. Despite observational evidence suggesting a link between its intake and the development of hypertension, there remains no long-term scrutiny for its effect on blood pressure (BP). We therefore undertook a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, crossover trial in 52 hypertensive individuals to determine the effect of 12-week North American ginseng intake on 24-hour BP; we also measured serum cystatin C as a marker of renal function. After a 4-week placebo run-in, we randomly assigned 52 participants to 3 g/day of ginseng or placebo for 12 weeks. This was followed by an 8-week washout and a subsequent 12-week period in which the opposite treatment was administered. At run-in and at weeks 0 and 12 of each treatment period, participants were fitted with an ambulatory BP monitor to assess 24-hour BP. The primary outcome was the treatment difference at week 12 in mean 24-hour systolic BP. Secondary outcomes were treatment differences at week 12 in other ambulatory BP parameters and serum cystatin C. Forty participants (77%) completed the trial, with 3 removed from main analysis (n=2, antihypertensive drug changes; n=1, incomplete ambulatory monitoring). In the remaining 37, 12-week ginseng treatment was associated with a neutral effect on all ambulatory BP parameters compared with placebo; an intention-to-treat analysis supported this. Ginseng did not affect serum cystatin C level. Overall, long-term ginseng use had no effect on 24-hour BP and renal function 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".