Current Utilization and Research Status of the Herbal Medicine Guibi-Tang and Its Variants for Cognitive Impairment: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Guibi-tang (GBT) and its variant Kami-guibi-tang (KGBT) are traditional East Asian multi-herb formulas prescribed for memory loss, insomnia, and fatigue. Preclinical data suggest multimodal neuroprotective actions, including cholinergic signaling modulation and activation of the cAMP response element-binding protein (CREB)/extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) pathway; however, clinical evidence for cognitive disorders remains scattered. This scoping review aimed to map the breadth, design characteristics, efficacy signals, and safety profile of GBT and KGBT across the full spectrum of cognitive impairment. Methods: Following the Arksey–O’Malley framework and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, seven databases were searched (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, ScienceON, Scopus, Citation Information by the National Institute of Informatics) from inception to 31 January 2025, for human studies evaluating GBT or KGBT in subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), dementia, or post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI). Two reviewers independently screened, extracted, and charted data on study design, participants, interventions, outcomes, and adverse events. Results: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria—nine randomized controlled trials, one crossover trial, and five observational reports—enrolling 555 participants (age range, 59–87 years). All were conducted in the Republic of Korea, Japan, or China. GBT or KGBT, given as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy for 4 weeks to 9 months, produced modest but consistent improvements in global cognition (Mini-Mental State Examination/Montreal Cognitive Assessment), memory domains, activities of daily living, and neuropsychiatric symptoms across MCI, Alzheimer’s disease, and PSCI cohorts. Reported adverse event rates were comparable to or lower than those of placebo, usual care, or conventional drugs, and no serious treatment-related toxicity was identified. Conclusions: Current evidence—although limited by small sample sizes, heterogeneous formulations, short follow-up durations, and regional concentration—indicates that GBT and KGBT are well tolerated and confer clinically meaningful cognitive and functional benefits. Standardized, multicenter, placebo-controlled trials with biomarker end points are warranted to confirm long-term efficacy, clarify mechanisms, and guide integrative clinical 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 | 0.017 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".