Efficacy and safety of <i>Ginkgo biloba</i> dropping pills in the treatment of coronary heart disease with stable angina pectoris and depression: study protocol for a randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, double-blind and multicentre clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Coronary heart disease(CHD) with stable angina pectoris is a common cardiovascular disease. It has been reported that 10%–81.4% of these patients suffer from psychological conditions,such as depression, which has been associated with more frequent angina, lower treatment satisfaction and lower perceived quality of life. Ginkgo biloba extract (GBE), the raw material of Ginkgo biloba dropping pills (GBDPs), is widely used to treat various conditions, including cardiovascular disease, ischaemic cerebrovascular disease, and depression. This clinical trial aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of GBDPs in improving the frequency of angina pectoris and the life quality of patients with stable angina pectoris and depression symptoms. Methods This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and multicentre clinical trial will be conducted in four medical centres in China. We aim to recruit approximately 72 participants aged 18–75 years with depression and coronary heart disease with stable angina pectoris. Based on conventional drug treatment, participants will be randomly assignedto the treatment group (GBDPs group; n=36) or the control group (placebo group; n=36) at a 1:1 allocation ratio. After randomisation,follow-up will be done at 4 weeks, 8 weeks and 12 weeks (±3 days). Additionally, 30 healthy individuals will be enrolled to investigate the underlying pharmacological mechanisms of the effects of GBE. The primary outcomes will be the Seattle Angina Questionnaire score and the frequency of angina pectoris-related symptoms each week. The secondary outcomes will include the 36-item Short Form Health Survey quality-of-life scale, Hamilton Depression Scale and composite endpoint incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events. Ethics and dissemination This trial has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, China (approval number: ZYYECK [2020]030). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. The results of this trial will be publicly shared through academic conferences and peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number NCT04529148 and ChiCTR2200066908.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".