Differential Therapy of mild to moderateDepressive Episodes (ICD-10 F 32.0; F 32.1) with St. John's Wort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this report was to evaluate specific depressive symptoms that are most suitable for a therapy with the Ze 117 St. John's wort extract. We examined the antidepressant efficacy and drug safety of Ze 117 and fluoxetine in a multicentric prospective randomized double-blind parallel group comparison according to generally accepted guidelines such as the Declaration of Helsinki and GCP. We treated outpatients (n = 240; Ze 117: 126; fluoxetine: 114) with mild to moderate depressive episodes (ICD-10: F 32.0, F 32.1; HAMD range: 16-24) with either two tablets St John's wort (Ze 117; 500 mg extract/day) or fluoxetine (20 mg/day) for 6 weeks. Antidepressant efficacy was evaluated with the validated HAMD psychometric method. A validated analysis of HAMD subscores was made to verify the efficacy for certain depressive symptoms. The main results were: * The HAMD responder rate was 60% in the Ze 117 group compared to 40% in the fluoxetine group (p = 0.005). * Particularly, there was a marked decrease of depressive agitation (pre-post comparison: 46%) and anxiety symptoms (44%) during the therapy with St. John's wort. Depressive obstruction (44%) and sleep disorders (43%) were reduced during the treatment, too. There were no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups. * Adverse events occurred in 28 patients (25%) in the fluoxetine group and in 18 (14%) of the St. John's wort group (p < 0.07). St. John's wort extract is a clinically effective equivalent to fluoxetine regarding overall depressive symptoms and main symptoms of depressive episodes. An especially interesting overall observation is that Ze 117 is particularly effective in depressive patients suffering from anxiety symptoms. St. John's wort revealed better safety and tolerability data than fluoxetine.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".