MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977894505 · doi:10.1542/pir.28-2-69

Complementary, Holistic, and Integrative Medicine: St. John's Wort

2007· review· en· W1977894505 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Theresa L. Charrois, Craig Sadler, Sunita Vohra

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatrics in Review · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNatural Compound Pharmacology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDepression (economics)Integrative medicineAlternative medicineRandomized controlled trialPsychiatryFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. Theresa L. Charrois, BScPharm, MSc* 2. Candace Sadler* 3. Sunita Vohra, MD, MSc* 1. *Complementary and Alternative Research and Education (CARE) Program, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Canada, on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics Provisional Section on Complementary, Holistic, and Integrative Medicine St. John’s wort, derived from the Hypericaceae family, has played a medicinal role for thousands of years. (1) Although it has been used empirically for a wide range of ailments in the past, including skin conditions, nerve problems, and muscle pain, the primary uses currently are for depression and nervous conditions, (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7) due to its ability to inhibit the reuptake of dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine within the brain. (2) Although promising evidence is emerging for the clinical use of St. John’s wort, data specific to pediatrics are still limited, warranting additional research. Surveys in the United States and Britain of herbal use for the treatment of pediatric depression (8)(9) demonstrate that St. John’s wort is used commonly by children (22% and 9% in the two surveys, respectively). Formal evaluation of efficacy in pediatric populations is preliminary but shows some promise. Presently, no systematic reviews or randomized, controlled trials have been published regarding the use of St. John’s wort in children. An open-label pilot study conducted by Findling and associates (10) analyzed the use of St. John’s wort in children between the ages of 6 and 16 years for treatment of major depressive disorder. The starting dose was 150 mg 3 times daily for 4 weeks. Exclusion criteria included failure to respond to 4 weeks of antidepressant therapy. Patients considered clinically nonresponsive to St. John’s wort (as per a priori criteria) after 4 weeks had their dosage increased to 300 mg 3 times daily. A total of 33 patients were enrolled in the study, with a mean age of 10.5 years (SD, 2.9 y). At the end of the 8-week trial, 25 patients met the criteria of clinical response (76%). Also, 93% of the study population decided to …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.202
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatrics in ReviewSame topicNatural Compound Pharmacology StudiesFrench-language works237,207