Safety and efficacy of dietary supplement (gintonin-enriched fraction from ginseng) in subjective memory impairment: A randomized placebo-controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gintonin inhibits β-amyloid production, increases acetylcholine level in the brain, and promotes neurogenesis. We evaluated the efficacy of gintonin-enriched fraction (GEF) in improving the cognitive performance in subjective memory impairment. METHODS: In this 8-week, randomized, assessor and participant blinded, placebo-controlled study, participants with subjective memory impairment but preserved cognitive function (Korean Mini-Mental State Examination [K-MMSE] score ≥23) were assigned to GEF 300mg/day or placebo. K-MMSE, Korean versions of the Alzheimer's disease assessment scale, color-word stroop test (K-CWST), clinical dementia rating, and Beck depression inventory-II were evaluated along with the safety profiles. The primary outcome was set as the change in the K-MMSE. RESULTS: = 0.005) of K-CWST, although only the improvement in the K-CWST scores were higher than the minimum clinically important difference. The frequency of adverse events was comparable between the groups and all were of mild severity. CONCLUSION: GEF is safe but might not be effective in treating subjective memory impairment within the current study setting. However, GEF showed a trend of improving the global cognition and the frontal executive function. Further large-sized studies with longer follow-up period are warranted. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This clinical trial was registered at Clinical Research Information Service of Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: KCT0004636.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".