Health-Related Messages About Herbs, Spices, and Other Botanicals Appearing in Print Issues and Websites of Legacy Media: Content Analysis and Evaluation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Legacy media are publications that existed before the internet. Many of these have migrated to a web format, either replacing or in parallel to their print issues. Readers place an economic value on access to the information presented as they pay for subscriptions and place a higher degree of trust in their content. Much has been written about inaccurate and misleading health information in social media; however, the content and accuracy of information contained in legacy media has not been examined in detail. Discussion of herbs, spices, and other botanicals has been absent from this context. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to (1) identify the health associations of botanical products mentioned in legacy media targeted to a range of demographic groups and (2) evaluate these health associations for accuracy against published scientific studies. METHODS: In total, 10 popular magazines targeting a range of gender, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation demographic groups were selected for analysis. Relevant content was extracted and coded over 1 year. Associations between specific botanical products and health factors were identified. For the most frequent botanical-health application associations, a PubMed search was conducted to identify reviews corresponding to each item's indicated applications. Where no systematic reviews were available, single research studies were sought. RESULTS: A total of 237 unique botanical products were identified. There were 128 mentions of these in the print issues and 1215 on the websites. In total, 18 health applications were identified and used to categorize the indicated uses for the various products individually and as general categories. The most frequently mentioned applications were skin care, with 913 mentions, immunity enhancement, with 705 mentions, gastrointestinal health and probiotics, with 184 mentions, and cognitive function (stress and mental health), with 106 mentions. Comparison to published literature evaluating the efficacy of these functions identified positive support for aloe vera, argan oil, chamomile, jojoba oil, lavender, rosemary, and tea tree oil in skin care. Berries, ginger, turmeric, and green tea had the strongest evidence for a role in immunity enhancement. Ginger and oats were supported as having a role in gastrointestinal health. Finally, berries, lavender, ashwagandha, and cannabidiol were supported as having a role in managing stress. Other frequently mentioned items such as aloe vera, ashwagandha, or mushrooms for immunity were less strongly supported. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison of the most prevalent associations between botanical products and health applications to published literature indicates that, overall, these associations were consistent with current scientific reports about the health applications of botanical products. While some products had a greater degree of research support than others, truly egregious falsehoods were absent. Therefore, legacy media may be considered a credible source of information to readers about these topics.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».