Treatment of the cardiac hypertrophic response and heart failure with ginseng, ginsenosides, and ginseng-related products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heart failure is a major medical and economic burden throughout the world. Although various treatment options are available to treat heart failure, death rates in both men and women remain high. Potential adjunctive therapies may lie with use of herbal medications, many of which possess potent pharmacological properties. Among the most widely studied is ginseng, a member of the genus Panax that is grown in many parts of the world and that has been used as a medical treatment for a variety of conditions for thousands of years, particularly in Asian societies. There are a number of ginseng species, each possessing distinct pharmacological effects due primarily to differences in their bioactive components including saponin ginsenosides and polysaccharides. While experimental evidence for salutary effects of ginseng on heart failure is robust, clinical evidence is less so, primarily due to a paucity of large-scale well-controlled clinical trials. However, there is evidence from small trials that ginseng-containing Chinese medications such as Shenmai can offer benefit when administered as adjunctive therapy to heart failure patients. Substantial additional studies are required, particularly in the clinical arena, to provide evidence for a favourable effect of ginseng in heart failure patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".