The Safety of St. John’s Wort (<i>Hypericum perforatum</i>) During Breastfeeding
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We examined the safety of St. John's wort to nursing mothers and their infants. METHOD: A prospective, observational, cohort study was conducted. Thirty-three breastfeeding women receiving St. John's wort (Group 1) who contacted our teratogen/toxicant counseling service regarding the safety of St. John's wort during breastfeeding were followed up between May 1999 and April 2001. These women were compared with 101 disease-matched (Group 2) and 33 age- and parity-matched nondisease controls (Group 3). Information collected included maternal and neonatal demographics, breastfeeding duration, use of St. John's wort, maternal and infant adverse events, infant weight over the first year of life, and whether or not the mother experienced a decrease in lactation. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences found in maternal or infant demographics or maternal adverse events. Whereas only 1 infant each in Groups 2 and 3 was reported to be colicky, there were 2 cases of "colic," 2 of "drowsiness," and 1 of "lethargy" in Group 1 (p <.01; Group 1 vs. Group 2, p <.01; Group 1 vs. Group 3, p =.20). Although 3 of these women in Group 1 consulted their doctor, specific medical treatment was not required. No significant difference was observed in the frequency of maternal report of decreased milk production among the groups, nor was a difference found in infant weight over the first year of life. CONCLUSION: These results provide a framework for the management of breastfeeding women receiving 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.
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 | 0.018 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 it