Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 336

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

<emph type="ital">Ginkgo biloba</emph> for Preventing Cognitive Decline in Older Adults<subtitle>A Randomized Trial</subtitle>

Open access
Snitz, Beth E.·2009·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: The herbal product Ginkgo biloba is taken frequently with the intention of improving cognitive health in aging. However, evidence from adequately powered clinical trials is lacking regarding its effect on long-term cognitive functioning. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether G. biloba slows the rates of global or domain-specific cognitive decline in older adults. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Ginkgo Evaluation of Memory (GEM) study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of 3069 community-dwelling participants aged 72 to 96 years, conducted in 6 academic medical centers in the United States between 2000 and 2008, with a median follow-up of 6.1 years. INTERVENTION: Twice-daily dose of 120-mg extract of G. biloba (n = 1545) or identical-appearing placebo (n = 1524). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of change over time in the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MSE), in the cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog), and in neuropsychological domains of memory, attention, visual-spatial construction, language, and executive functions, based on sums of z scores of individual tests. RESULTS: Annual rates of decline in z scores did not differ between G. biloba and placebo groups in any domains, including memory (0.043; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.034-0.051 vs 0.041; 95% CI, 0.032-0.050), attention (0.043; 95% CI, 0.037-0.050 vs 0.048; 95% CI, 0.041-0.054), visuospatial abilities (0.107; 95% CI, 0.097-0.117 vs 0.118; 95% CI, 0.108-0.128), language (0.045; 95% CI, 0.037-0.054 vs 0.041; 95% CI, 0.033-0.048), and executive functions (0.092; 95% CI, 0.086-0.099 vs 0.089; 95% CI, 0.082-0.096). For the 3MSE and ADAS-Cog, rates of change varied by baseline cognitive status (mild cognitive impairment), but there were no differences in rates of change between treatment groups (for 3MSE, P = .71; for ADAS-Cog, P = .97). There was no significant effect modification of treatment on rate of decline by age, sex, race, education, APOE*E4 allele, or baseline mild cognitive impairment (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Compared with placebo, the use of G. biloba, 120 mg twice daily, did not result in less cognitive decline in older adults with normal cognition or with mild cognitive impairment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00010803.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2009.1913

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 336

Metadata

Authors
Snitz, B. E.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2009-12-23
Volume
302
Issue
24
Pages
2663
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2156220503
Cited by
336
References
2
FWCI
63.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: <emph type="ital">Ginkgo biloba</emph> for Preventing Cognitive Decline in Older Adults<subtitle>A Randomized Trial</subtitle>. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2009.1913
The paper
Snitz, B. E. (2009). <emph type="ital">Ginkgo biloba</emph> for Preventing Cognitive Decline in Older Adults<subtitle>A Randomized Trial</subtitle>. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1913

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.