Inhibition of Myocardial Remodeling and Heart Failure by Traditional Herbal Medications: Evidence from Ginseng and ginkgo biloba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Herbal-based medications have been used as therapeutic agents for thousands of years, particularly in Asian cultures. It is now well established that these herbal medications contain potent bioactive phytochemicals which exert a plethora of beneficial effects such as those seen on the cardiovascular system. Among the most widely studied of these herbal agents is ginseng, a member of the genus Panax, which has been shown to produce beneficial effects in terms of reducing cardiac pathology, at least in experimental studies. The beneficial effects of ginseng observed in such studies are likely attributable to their constituent ginsenosides, which are steroid-like saponins of which there are at least 100 and which vary according to ginseng species. Many ginseng species such as Panax ginseng (also known as Asian ginseng) and P quinquefolius (North American ginseng) as well as specific ginsenosides have been shown to attenuate hypertrophy as well as other indices of myocardial remodeling in a wide variety of experimental models. Ginkgo biloba on the other hand has been much less studied although the leaf extract of the ancient ginkgo tree has similarly consistently been shown to produce anti-remodeling effects. Ginkgo’s primary bioactive constituents are thought to be terpene trilactones called ginkgolides, of which there are currently seven known types. Ginkgo and ginkgolides have also been shown to produce anti-remodeling effects as have been shown for ginseng in a variety of experimental models, in some cases via similar mechanisms. Although a common single mechanism for the salutary effects of these compounds is unlikely, there are a number of examples of shared effects including antioxidant and antiapoptotic effects as well as inhibition of pro-hypertrophic intracellular signaling such as that involving the calcineurin pathway which results in the upregulation of pro-hypertrophic genes. Robust clinical evidence represented by large scale phase 3 trials is lacking although there is limited supporting evidence from small trials at least with respect to ginseng. Taken together, both ginseng and ginkgo as well as their bioactive components offer potential as adjuvant therapy for the treatment of myocardial remodeling and heart failure.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".