Antimicrobial Natural Product Berberine Is Efficacious for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to test the efficacy of bioactive natural product berberine in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Data of 45 paroxysmal AF patients treated with berberine and 43 age, gender, New York Heart Association functional classification score, and concomitant cardiovascular disease matched patients treated with amiodarone were analyzed retrospectively to examine conversion rate, average conversion time, average heart rate, and echocardiographic parameters. There was no statistical difference between berberine and amiodarone on conversion rate or echocardiographic parameters. Berberine treatment showed a significantly longer average time to conversion and higher heart rate during sinus rhythm (SR) than amiodarone. Echocardiographic parameters showed that E/A ratio and left atrial diameter were significantly improved after 6- and 12-month berberine treatment, but only E/A ratio improved significantly at the same time points after amiodarone treatment. This is the first report to specifically compare efficacy of berberine and amiodarone in the treatment of patients with AF. We find that berberine and amiodarone are equally effective for conversion of AF and maintenance of normal SR.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".