The advantages and disadvantages of a ‘herbal’ medicine in a patient with diabetes mellitus: a case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-initiated alternative treatments in the management of chronic conditions are common and increasing in the United Kingdom. To date, there have been no reports of herbal medicine use alone in the management of diabetes mellitus. We report here the case of a man who attained excellent glycaemic control using a 'herbal' medicine and reveal how important it was to identify the products of active constituents. CASE REPORT: A 48-year-old man attending our clinic in Tooting, South London with known Type 2 diabetes, with evidence of both micro- and macro-vascular diabetes-related complications, was poorly controlled despite a drug regimen consisting of oral metformin and twice daily insulin. He went to India for at least 1 year and on returning to the clinic had excellent glycaemic control off all diabetic medication. While away he had started himself on a regimen of three different 'herbal' balls. Samples of blood were found to contain chlorpropamide in a therapeutic concentration; chlorpropamide was also found in one of the balls. He has been counselled on the potential risks associated with chlorpropamide and his treatment reverted to a more conventional treatment regimen. CONCLUSIONS: General practitioners and hospital physicians should be alert to those patients returning from abroad on effective 'herbal' medications that these may in fact contain an active ingredient.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".