Effect of coadministration of enriched Korean Red Ginseng (Panax ginseng) and American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L) on cardiometabolic outcomes in type-2 diabetes: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus and hypertension often occur together, amplifying cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and emphasizing the need for a multitargeted treatment approach. American ginseng (AG) and Korean Red Ginseng (KRG) species could improve glycemic control via complementary mechanisms. Additionally, a KRG-inherent component, ginsenoside Rg3, may moderate blood pressure (BP). Our objective was to investigate the therapeutic potential of coadministration of Rg3-enriched Korean Red Ginseng (Rg3-KRG) and AG, added to standard of care therapy, in the management of hypertension and cardiometabolic risk factors in type-2 diabetes. METHODS: Within a randomized controlled, parallel design of 80 participants with type-2 diabetes (HbA1c: 6.5-8%) and hypertension (systolic BP: 140-160 mmHg or treated), supplementation with either 2.25 g/day of combined Rg3-KRG + AG or wheat-bran control was assessed over a 12-wk intervention period. The primary endpoint was ambulatory 24-h systolic BP. Additional endpoints included further hemodynamic assessment, glycemic control, plasma lipids and safety monitoring. RESULTS: Combined ginseng intervention generated a mean ± SE decrease in primary endpoint of 24-h systolic BP (-3.98 ± 2.0 mmHg, p = 0.04). Additionally, there was a greater reduction in HbA1c (-0.35 ± 0.1% [-3.8 ± 1.1 mmol/mol], p = 0.02), and change in blood lipids: total cholesterol (-0.50 ± 0.2 mmol/l, p = 0.01), non-HDL-C (-0.54 ± 0.2 mmol/l, p = 0.01), triglycerides (-0.40 ± 0.2 mmol/l, p = 0.02) and LDL-C (-0.35 ± 0.2 mmol/l, p = 0.06) at 12 wks, relative to control. No adverse safety outcomes were observed. CONCLUSION: Coadministration of Rg3-KRG + AG is an effective addon for improving BP along with attaining favorable cardiometabolic outcomes in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Ginseng derivatives may offer clinical utility when included in the polypharmacy and lifestyle treatment of diabetes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier, NCT01578837.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".