MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220902453 · doi:10.1155/2022/1148112

Efficacy and Safety of Kleeb Bua Daeng Formula in Mild Cognitive Impairment Patients: A Phase I Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

2022· article· en· W4220902453 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Natdanai Musigavong, Chantana Boonyarat, Yaowared Chulikhit, Orawan Monthakantirat, Makorn Limudomporn, Supaporn Pitiporn, Pakakrong Kwankhao, Supawadee Daodee

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGinkgo biloba and Cashew Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChulalongkorn UniversityKing Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital
KeywordsPlaceboMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitive impairmentMedicineCognitionDouble blindDementiaRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineClinical trialPhysical therapyPsychiatryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) were at increased risk of conversion to dementia. The Kleeb Bua Daeng (KBD) formula could be the alternative treatment option for MCI through multitarget activities. Lacking of clinical trial information brought about the study in our research. Forty patients with MCI were randomly assigned to receive the KBD capsule or placebo at a dose of 1,000 mg twice a day for three months. Their cognitive functions were monitored by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and blood chemistry assessment every one month. We found that the KBD-treated group had no significant differences in the MoCA test compared to placebo. Moreover, there was no alteration in biochemical parameters of the liver and renal function was observed which could confirm the safety of this KBD formula.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-based Complementary and Alternative MedicineSame topicGinkgo biloba and Cashew ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207