theCommonColdinHealthyAdults:ASystematicReview
Bibliographic record
Abstract
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Background: Standardized ginseng extract has become the best-selling cold and flu remedy in Canada, yet much controversy regarding the efficacy of ginseng in preventing common colds remains. Objective: To assess the efficacy of ginseng preparations for the prevention of common colds in healthy adults. Methods: Comprehensive bibliographic database, trial registry and grey literature searches were conducted up to December 2007. Randomized controlled trials or controlled clinical trials comparing North American (Panax quinquefolius)orAsianginseng(Panax ginseng) root extract to placebo or no treatment in healthy adults were included. Two reviewers independently applied the study selection criteria and assessed methodological quality. Results:Five trials involving 747 participants were included. All five trials examined North American ginseng. The methodological quality of the trials varied widely. Ginseng preparations significantly reduced the total number of common colds by 25 % compared to placebo (one trial; 95 % CI: 5–45). There was a tendency toward a lower incidence of having at least one common cold or other acute respiratory infection (ARI) in the ginseng group compared to the placebo group (five trials; relative risk: 0.70; 95 % CI: 0.48–1.02). Compared to placebo, ginseng significantly shortened the duration of colds or ARIs by 6.2 days (two trials; 95 % CI: 3.4–9.0). Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to conclude that ginseng reduces the incidence or severity of common colds. North
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 | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.119 | 0.033 |
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".