Bibliographic record
Abstract
La popularidad de los remedios naturales o alternativos para tratar los trastornos medicos y psiquiatricos se ha acelerado de forma marcada en la ultima decada, en EE. UU. y en todo el mundo. Este articulo revisa la evidencia de la eficacia clinica, los principios activos, los mecanismos de accion, las dosis recomendadas y la toxicidad de los tres supuestos antidepresivos naturales mejor estudiados, la hierba de San Juan (hiperico), la S-adenosilo metionina y los acidos grasos Q-3 acido eicosapentanoico y acido docosahexaenoico. A pesar de que cada vez hay mas evidencia de su eficacia y seguridad, hacen falta mas estudios globales antes de que estos remedios puedan recomendarse como alternativas seguras y eficaces o como adyuvantes a los agentes psicotropicos convencionales. Hay pocos datos sobre seguridad en el embarazo y durante la lactancia, y por lo tanto se recomienda tener precaucion en mujeres embarazadas o que esten amamantando.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.985 | 0.985 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".