MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412352541 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0326227

Efficacy and safety of Cheonwangbosim-dan (Tian Wang Bu Xin Dan) for treatment of mild cognitive impairment: A randomized placebo-controlled pilot trial

2025· article· en· W4412352541 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jae‐Hong Kim, Ae‐Ran Kim, Bok‐Nam Seo, Gwang-Cheon Park, Jeong-Soon Lee

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineAdverse effectRandomized controlled trialPlaceboDementiaQuality of life (healthcare)Blood pressurePhysical therapyInternal medicineClinical trialDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI), an intermediate condition between healthy cognitive changes due to aging and dementia, is a risk factor for dementia. Cheonwangbosim-dan (CWBSD) is a traditional herbal medicine widely used to improve mental and physical illness in East Asia. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of CWBSD in the treatment of MCI. This clinical trial adopted a double-blind, single-center, parallel-arm, prospective, randomized controlled pilot study design with a full analysis set. Forty-eight participants with MCI were randomized to the control or CWBSD groups. The participants were administered either placebo or CWBSD once daily (at a dose of 3 g) for twenty-four weeks. The primary outcome measure was a change in the Korean version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA-K). The secondary outcome measures included memory, quality of life, depression, and level of activity in daily living. Safety measures were conducted by comparing the occurrence of adverse events and changes in blood chemistry parameters, pulse rate, and blood pressure between the two groups. After 24 weeks of treatment, no significant differences in the changes in the total MoCA-K scores were detected between the two groups. Changes in secondary outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups. In the safety evaluation, there was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to the occurrence of adverse events and changes in blood chemistry parameters, blood pressure, and pulse rate. We demonstrated that CWBSD treatment may be safe and does not significantly improve cognitive function, quality of life, daily activities, or depression in individuals with MCI. Further studies are necessary to validate the efficacy and safety of CWBSD in the treatment of MCI. Trial registration Clinical Research Information Service KCT0006787.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→