Ginkgo biloba

View my plan →

The short answer

Standardized extracts have mixed evidence for dementia symptoms and do not prevent dementia in healthy adults.

Evidence and scope: Mixed evidence
This status does not grade the ingredient for every goal, outcome, or person.
Important limitation: Trials are inconsistent or small, so a reliable clinically important benefit is not established.
Before deciding: Key concern: Anticoagulants, antiplatelets, seizures, diabetes medicines, surgery, and raw seeds are major concerns.

01 / PRACTICAL GUIDE

Dose, absorption, and combinations

These are indication-specific reference or studied ranges—not a personalized prescription. Start with the objective, then check the form, label, medicines, and health conditions.

Reference range by objective

Cognitive-performance research120–240 mg/day standardized extract in trials

Reference or studied range—not a personalized prescription. The product label or a clinician may specify a different dose.

Dose source ↗

More is not automatically better. A clinician or product label may specify a different amount.

Absorption / solubilityFormulation-dependent

Not usefully classified as a fat- or water-soluble vitamin; absorption depends on the salt, extract, delivery system, and meal.

How it is commonly taken

Divide with meals; use only standardized leaf extract.

Do not combine casually

Anticoagulants, antiplatelets, seizures, diabetes medicines, surgery, and raw seeds are major concerns.

Dose and use source ↗

Dose and use links lead to primary or official source material. Search links are discovery tools, not proof that every returned paper applies.

02 / EVIDENCE

What the research says

We keep supportive, mixed, negative, safety, and contextual findings together. The headline never replaces the underlying papers.

1research papers in this ledger

82unique primary studies represented

10,613unique participants represented

These are audited counts for this JIVANA collection, not search-result totals. Participants are counted once when multiple papers use the same cohort; review papers are not added again to participant totals.

Open the research timelineResearch timeline

Entries are ordered by publication year. A study period appears only when the source reports it.

2026

Mixed or qualifiedPMID 41641880 · CD013661

Ginkgo biloba for cognitive impairment and dementia

Moderate-certainty evidence found little or no six-month benefit in mild cognitive impairment. Low-certainty evidence suggested small-to-moderate six-month benefits in dementia, with very high heterogeneity; results do not show prevention or slowed progression and should not replace dementia evaluation or care.

Published: 2026n=10,613 participants82 primary studies represented

Study design and methods

Design: Cochrane systematic review of 82 randomized trials
Population: 10,613 people with subjective cognitive complaints, mild cognitive impairment, multiple sclerosis with cognitive problems, or dementia
Intervention: Ginkgo preparations versus placebo, usual care, or other treatments
Outcome: Global clinical status, cognition, activities of daily living, adverse events, and serious adverse events

Funding or conflict note: Review authors reported no commercial ginkgo conflicts; several held Cochrane roles but were excluded from the editorial process.

Open research record ↗

Unscreened discovery appendix—not evidence91 candidate publicationsSearch run: Aug 21, 2026

Complete for the displayed PubMed query at the search timestamp—not for all databases or every possible synonym. Candidates can be irrelevant, duplicate the same study, or report negative findings. They are never summed as evidence or participants until screened.

03 / SOURCES

Start with the source material

Official evidence overviewPubMed bounded human-evidence search Live PubMed discovery searchNational Library of Medicine

The live search is for discovery only. Search-result counts change and are not included in the audited totals above.

Recent PubMed discovery recordsDirect links to the first 12 records returned by the reproducible search. These are discovery candidates—not reviewed summaries or a count of supportive findings.

04 / EXPERT CONTEXT

Expert context—not evidence

Expert positions are dated context—not scientific evidence. They never raise the evidence status or become consensus by repetition.

No direct, source-verified endorsement is currently recorded. Research authorship or discussion alone is not treated as endorsement.