Echinacea purpurea L. in children: safety, tolerability, compliance, and clinical effectiveness in upper respiratory tract infectionsThis article is one of a selection of papers published in this special issue (part 2 of 2) on the Safety and Efficacy of Natural Health Products.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Echinacea purpurea (L.) Moench was mistakenly taken from North America to Germany in 1939 where it was cultivated and various extractions were prepared and subsequently used to treat upper respiratory tract infections. Parents often administer Echinacea to their children, but safety data on the use of Echinacea in Canadian children is lacking. A screening history, physical examination, and daily record of symptoms from an initial visit through to a the follow-up visit 13 days later were used to increase patient safety. Each subject was administered an aerial part Echinacea extract. The dose was based on age (2.5 mL three times per day for children aged 2-5 years, and 5 mL two times per day for children aged 6-12 years) and administered for 10 days in an open-label trial. A rating scale was used to measure tolerance to the treatment. We assessed the safety and compliance of use of the Echinacea extract by measuring the amount of extract returned at the end of the study, having the parents complete and return a daily symptom diary, and recording the subjects' use of other natural health products or medications during the trial. Clinical effectiveness of the Echinacea extract could not be accurately assessed because of the small trial size and because the extract had been administered when some of the subjects had an upper respiratory tract infection that had begun 1 or more days prior to the study; however, each subject's symptoms improved. No allergic or adverse reaction occurred and no safety issues arose.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".