<i>Effects of greens+</i><sup>®</sup> A Randomized, Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Greens+ is a popular natural health product marketed as energy-enhancing; however, no objective data substantiate this claim. The study objective was to determine if ingestion of greens+ 1. increases vitality, energy, and perception of well-being; 2. increases overall mental health and general health, and 3. decreases the incidence of colds and flus in an otherwise healthy female population. A total of 105 women were enrolled in this 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial; 63 (60%) completed the treatment protocol. Both treatment and placebo groups showed a significant time trend effect, scoring better on all outcome measures as the trial progressed. Compared with the placebo group, the greens+ group scored marginally higher on vitality, the primary outcome measure (p=0.055), and significantly higher on energy (a secondary outcome measure, p=0.018). Findings were based on repeated measures analysis of variance; baseline scores were used as covariates. Although a trend toward greater improvement in the greens+ group was noted in the other secondary outcome measures, this trend did not reach statistical significance. Overall, our findings were positive but not conclusive that greens+ increases vitality and energy. These results provide justification for further study of the effects of greens+.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".