Efficacy and safety of Buyang Huanwu-Tang (Boyang Hwano-Tang) in patients with vascular dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vascular dementia (VaD) is the second most common type of dementia; it has a significant impact on patients and exerts a great social and economic burden. However, there has been no comprehensive systematic review assessing the efficacy and safety of Buyang Huanwu-Tang (Boyang Hwano-Tang, BHT) for VaD. Therefore, this protocol was developed to conduct a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of BHT in the treatment of VaD. METHODS: We will perform a comprehensive electronic search including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycARTICLES, Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System, Korean Studies Information Service System, Research Information Service System, Korean Medical Database, KMbase, National Digital Science Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang database, VIP database, Citation Information by NII, and other sources from their inception to November 25, 2020. This systematic review will include only randomized controlled clinical trials of BHT for VaD. The main outcomes will include the Mini-Mental State Examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and Revised Hasegawa's Dementia Scale. Two researchers will independently conduct study selection, data extraction, and appraise the quality and risk of bias of the included studies. A meta-analysis will be conducted using Review Manager version 5.4. The evidence quality of each outcome will be appraised according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. RESULTS: This study will provide comprehensive understanding of the efficacy and safety of BHT for the treatment of VaD. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study will provide reliable evidence for clinical application and further study of BHT for VaD. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required because individual patient data will not be included in this study. The study findings will be disseminated through conference presentations. OSF REGISTRATION DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/NDYGP.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".