Andrographis paniculata extract versus placebo in the treatment of COVID-19: a double-blinded randomized control trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and purpose: ethanolic extract (APE). Experimental approach: The efficacy and safety of APE in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic COVID-19 patients compared with placebo were investigated through a prospective, double-blind randomized control trial. Patients received APE containing 60 mg of andrographolide, three times a day for five days. WHO progression scale, COVID-19 symptoms, and global assessment evaluated the efficacy and adverse events, liver and renal functions were monitored for safety. Findings/Results: 165 patients completed the study (83 patients in the APE group and 82 patients in the placebo group). The highest WHO progression scale was 4 and COVID-19 symptoms were significantly relieved on the last day of intervention in both groups, with no significant difference between groups. APE significantly relieved headache symptoms on day 1 and olfactory loss symptoms on day 2 compared to placebo. The global assessment showed that 80.7% of patients had total recovery after 5-day treatment with APE. Mild diarrhea was the most common side effect with a high dose that resolved within a few days. No hepatic or renal toxicity was associated with treatment. Conclusion and implications: APE at 180 mg/day for 5 days did not reduce COVID-19 progression in asymptomatic or mildly afflicted COVID-19 patients, however, it shortened the symptoms of olfactory loss with no adverse effects over 5 days of use.
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) | 0.004 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".