Cardioprotection by ginseng: experimental and clinical evidence and underlying mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protection of the ischemic and reperfused myocardium represents a major therapeutic challenge. Translating results from animal studies to the clinical setting has been disappointing, yet the need for effective intervention, particularly to limit heart damage following infarction or surgical procedures such as coronary artery bypass grafting, is substantial. Among the many compounds touted as cardioprotective agents is ginseng, a medicinal herb belonging to the genus Panax, which has been used as a medicinal agent for thousands of years, particularly in Asian societies. The biological actions of ginseng are very complex and reflect composition of many bioactive components, although many of the biological and therapeutic effects of ginseng have been attributed to the presence of steroid-like saponins termed ginsenosides. Both ginseng and many ginsenosides have been shown to exert cardioprotective properties in experimental models. There is also clinical evidence that traditional Chinese medications containing ginseng exert cardioprotective properties, although such clinical evidence is less robust primarily owing to the paucity of large-scale clinical trials. Here, we discuss the experimental and clinical evidence for ginseng, ginsenosides, and ginseng-containing formulations as cardioprotective agents against ischemic and reperfusion injury. We further discuss potential mechanisms, particularly as these relate to antioxidant properties.
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 | 0.001 | 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".