Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40134691›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025

Efficacy of

YoungSoon Yang, Min-Seong Koo, Yong Tae Kwak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Efficacy ofFrontiers in neurology · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

YoungSoon YangDepartment of Neurology, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Cheonan Hospital, Cheonan, Republic of Korea.
Min-Seong KooDepartment of Psychiatry, Catholic Kwandong University College of Medicine, Incheon, Republic of Korea.
Yong Tae KwakDepartment of Neurology, Hyoja Geriatric Hospital, Yongin, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Objective: We investigated whether combining Ginkgo with donepezil confers additional benefits in amyloid PET-positive AD patients. We also explored changes in the plasma biomarker MDS-Oaβ (Multimer Detection System-Oligomeric Aβ), which reflects the propensity of Aβ monomers to form oligomers. Methods: This retrospective study included newly diagnosed, drug-naïve AD patients who were amyloid PET-positive and had at least 12 months of follow-up. Participants received either donepezil alone (Donepezil-only) or donepezil plus Ginkgo (Donepezil-Ginkgo). Clinical measures included the Korean version of the Mini-Mental State Examination (K-MMSE) and the Sum of Boxes of the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR-SB). Plasma MDS-Oaβ was assessed at baseline and at 12 months. Results: A total of 101 patients were analyzed (60 Donepezil-only, 41 Donepezil-Ginkgo). Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar. After 12 months, the Donepezil-only group showed minimal change in K-MMSE and a slight decrease in MDS-Oaβ. The Donepezil-Ginkgo group demonstrated a significant improvement in K-MMSE (+2.4) and a larger reduction in MDS-Oaβ (-0.15). No significant between-group difference was observed for CDR-SB. Adverse events were mostly mild and did not lead to discontinuation. Conclusion: The addition of Ginkgo to donepezil may yield superior cognitive outcomes and a greater decrease in plasma MDS-Oaβ compared with donepezil alone in amyloid PET-positive AD patients. Further large-scale, prospective trials are warranted to validate these findings and elucidate Ginkgo's mechanistic role in AD.

Indexed as

Alzheimer’s diseaseamyloid PETdonepezilGinkgo bilobaMDS-Oaβ

Identifiers

PMID40134691
PMCPMC11932902

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.