Implications of Self‐administered St. John's Wort for Depression Symptom Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To provide nurse practitioners (NPs) with a greater understanding of the complex issues surrounding St. John's wort as a self-treatment for depression; to review laws regulating the production and sale of herbal products in the United States (U.S.); and to review clinical and practice implications for the self-administration of St. John's wort and herbal treatments. DATA SOURCES: Federal regulations pertaining to herbal products, current research literature, and anecdotal and consumer reports. CONCLUSIONS: Current research findings suggest that St. John's wort may be an effective treatment for mild depression; however, evidence of significant adverse drug interactions with St. John's wort should not be overlooked. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Clinical assessment of the mildly depressed patient wishing to self-administer St. John's wort requires basic knowledge of this herbal supplement including regulation and risk information. An open NP-patient relationship helps to ensure patient disclosure of self-administered St. John's wort.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".