MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410396650 · doi:10.1159/000545937

Efficacy of Combined Herbal and Western Medicine Based on Traditional Chinese Medicine for Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia in Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4410396650 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueComplementary Medicine Research · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGinkgo biloba and Cashew Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisDementiaInternal medicineConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialRelative riskClinical trialSystematic reviewDiseasePhysical therapyMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: This systematic review aimed to assess the clinical evidence supporting the combination of syndrome differentiation (SD)-based herbal medicine (HM) and Western medicine (WM) in treating Parkinson's disease (PD)-mild cognitive impairment (PD-MCI) and -dementia (PDD). METHODS: Ten electronic bibliographic databases were searched from inception to March 4, 2024, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SD-based HM plus conventional therapies with conventional therapies alone for PD-MCI and PDD. Two authors independently screened and selected studies and extracted data related to trial quality, characteristics, and results. The mean difference (MD) was used to analyze continuous variables, and meta-analysis was performed using Reviewer Manager 5.4 software. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. RESULTS: For the 15 articles selected for review, 12 trials were included in the meta-analysis: 9 comprising 688 patients with PD-MCI and 3 comprising 264 patients with PDD and with a type of SD, such as "blood stasis and stirring wind" or "deficiency of the liver-kidney." The meta-analysis showed significant differences favoring HM plus WM with respect to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score for PD-MCI (MD = 2.30, 95% confidence interval [CI; 1.40, 3.19]; p < 0.00001, I2 = 76%) and PDD (MD = 3.14, 95% CI [0.48, 5.81]; p = 0.02, I2 = 82%) compared with WM alone. Improvement of cognitive impairment treated using "deficiency of the liver-kidney" SD-based HM plus WM in PD-MCI was more beneficial than that treated using WM alone. CONCLUSIONS: SD-based HM may serve as an adjunctive treatment for PD-MCI and PDD, improving cognitive function and alleviating PD symptoms. No severe adverse event was observed in the HM plus WM group, suggesting that HM may be safe for patients with cognitive impairment in PD. However, evidence regarding the efficacy of HM based on SD for PD-MCI and PDD is of poor quality, and all studies were conducted in China. Thus, and rigorous, multicenter, and international RCTs are required.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.282
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.213 · 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