Ginkgo Biloba for Alzheimer's Disease: From Mixed Dementia Trials to Biomarker-Confirmed Mild Cognitive Impairment-What Have We Learned over Two Decades, and Is There Finally a Bit of Hope?

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES
YoungSoon Yang, Yong Tae Kwak
{"title":"Ginkgo Biloba for Alzheimer's Disease: From Mixed Dementia Trials to Biomarker-Confirmed Mild Cognitive Impairment-What Have We Learned over Two Decades, and Is There Finally a Bit of Hope?","authors":"YoungSoon Yang, Yong Tae Kwak","doi":"10.3390/brainsci16040430","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ginkgo biloba products have been used for decades for cognitive symptoms, yet the clinical evidence in Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains modest and heterogeneous. This review revisits key symptomatic and prevention trials and summarizes how systematic reviews and meta-analyses have informed ongoing clinical skepticism, often citing small effect sizes, limited patient-centered meaningfulness, short follow-up, and repeated trial designs. We suggest that long-standing ambiguity reflects multiple, overlapping sources of heterogeneity, including mixed-pathology recruitment, variable dosing and exposure duration, inconsistent outcome frameworks, and limited integration of biological readouts; differences across preparations and characterization practices may further contribute to variability. In the biomarker era, AD is increasingly defined biologically, and amyloid PET-confirmed cohorts offer a clearer test by reducing diagnostic noise and enabling mechanism-adjacent interpretation. Recent studies in amyloid PET-positive MCI/AD report clinical preservation alongside directional changes in plasma oligomerization tendency (MDS-OAβ), with decreases in treated groups compared with increases in controls. While such findings cannot, by design, establish disease-modifying effects, they provide a biologically anchored context for interpreting modest clinical signals. We conclude with practical recommendations to align cohort biology, stage, exposure certainty, duration, endpoints, and biomarker panels in next-generation trials of Ginkgo preparations in early AD-spectrum disease.</p>","PeriodicalId":9095,"journal":{"name":"Brain Sciences","volume":"16 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13114922/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci16040430","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ginkgo biloba products have been used for decades for cognitive symptoms, yet the clinical evidence in Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains modest and heterogeneous. This review revisits key symptomatic and prevention trials and summarizes how systematic reviews and meta-analyses have informed ongoing clinical skepticism, often citing small effect sizes, limited patient-centered meaningfulness, short follow-up, and repeated trial designs. We suggest that long-standing ambiguity reflects multiple, overlapping sources of heterogeneity, including mixed-pathology recruitment, variable dosing and exposure duration, inconsistent outcome frameworks, and limited integration of biological readouts; differences across preparations and characterization practices may further contribute to variability. In the biomarker era, AD is increasingly defined biologically, and amyloid PET-confirmed cohorts offer a clearer test by reducing diagnostic noise and enabling mechanism-adjacent interpretation. Recent studies in amyloid PET-positive MCI/AD report clinical preservation alongside directional changes in plasma oligomerization tendency (MDS-OAβ), with decreases in treated groups compared with increases in controls. While such findings cannot, by design, establish disease-modifying effects, they provide a biologically anchored context for interpreting modest clinical signals. We conclude with practical recommendations to align cohort biology, stage, exposure certainty, duration, endpoints, and biomarker panels in next-generation trials of Ginkgo preparations in early AD-spectrum disease.

银杏叶对阿尔茨海默病的治疗:从混合痴呆试验到生物标志物证实的轻度认知障碍——20多年来我们学到了什么,最终是否有一点希望?
银杏叶产品已用于认知症状数十年,但阿尔茨海默病(AD)的临床证据仍然温和和异质性。本综述回顾了关键的症状和预防试验,并总结了系统评价和荟萃分析如何告知正在进行的临床怀疑,通常引用小效应量,有限的以患者为中心的意义,短随访和重复试验设计。我们认为,长期存在的模糊性反映了多种重叠的异质性来源,包括混合病理招募、可变剂量和暴露时间、不一致的结果框架以及生物读数的有限整合;制剂和表征实践之间的差异可能进一步导致变异。在生物标志物时代,AD越来越多地被生物学定义,淀粉样蛋白pet证实的队列通过减少诊断噪声和实现机制邻近解释提供了更清晰的测试。最近对淀粉样蛋白pet阳性MCI/AD的研究报告了血浆寡聚化倾向(MDS-OAβ)的方向性变化,治疗组降低而对照组增加。虽然这些发现不能通过设计来确定疾病修饰作用,但它们为解释适度的临床信号提供了生物学上的基础。最后,我们提出了一些实用的建议,以便在银杏制剂治疗早期ad谱系疾病的下一代试验中,对队列生物学、阶段、暴露确定性、持续时间、终点和生物标志物面板进行调整。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Brain Sciences
Brain Sciences Neuroscience-General Neuroscience
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
9.10%
发文量
1472
审稿时长
18.71 days
期刊介绍: Brain Sciences (ISSN 2076-3425) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes original articles, critical reviews, research notes and short communications in the areas of cognitive neuroscience, developmental neuroscience, molecular and cellular neuroscience, neural engineering, neuroimaging, neurolinguistics, neuropathy, systems neuroscience, and theoretical and computational neuroscience. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. Electronic files or software regarding the full details of the calculation and experimental procedure, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary material.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书