A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study of <i>Cistanche tubulosa</i> and <i>Ginkgo biloba</i> extracts for the improvement of cognitive function in middle‐aged and elderly people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mild cognitive impairment poses an increasing challenge to middle-aged and elderly populations. Traditional Chinese medicinal herbs like Cistanche tubulosa and Ginkgo biloba (CG) have been proposed as potential agents to improve cognitive and memory functions. A randomized controlled trial involving 100 Chinese middle-aged and elderly participants was conducted to investigate the potential synergistic effects of CG on cognitive function in individuals at risk of neurodegenerative diseases. Over 90 days, both CG group and placebo group received two tablets daily, with each pair of CG tablets containing 72 mg echinacoside and 27 mg flavonol glycosides. Cognitive functions were assessed using multiple scales and blood biomarkers were determined at baseline, Day 45, and Day 90. The CG group exhibited significant improvements in the scores of Mini-Mental State Examination (26.5 at baseline vs. 27.1 at Day 90, p < 0.001), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (23.4 at baseline vs. 25.3 at Day 90, p < 0.001), and World Health Organization Quality of Life (81.6 at baseline vs. 84.2 at Day 90, p < 0.001), all surpassing scores in placebo group. Notably, both the Cognitrax matrix test and the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised demonstrated enhanced memory functions, including long-term and delayed memory, after CG intervention. Moreover, cognitive-related blood biomarkers, including total tau, pT181, pS199, pT231, pS396, and thyroid-stimulating hormone, significantly decreased, whereas triiodothyronine and free triiodothyronine significantly increased. No treatment-related adverse events were reported, and routine blood and urine tests remained stable. These findings indicated that CG supplementation could potentially serve as an effective supplementary solution for enhancing cognitive and memory functions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".