MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983217720 · doi:10.1055/s-2002-19832

St. John's Wort (Hypericum Perforatum) - Is it Safe during Breastfeeding?

2002· article· en· W1983217720 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Claudia M. Klier, Miriam R. Schäfer, B Schmid-Siegel, Gabriela Spies Lenz, Marcus Mannel

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacopsychiatry · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypericum perforatumHyperforinHypericinBreast milkBreastfeedingMedicineHypericumDepression (economics)Traditional medicinePharmacologyPediatricsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both doctors and patients often treat postnatal depression with herbal preparations derived from St. John's wort. Because these preparations are available to patients as "natural" over-the-counter drugs for depression, they are popularly assumed to be safe. However, no systematic information exists regarding treatment of postnatal depression, infant's safety or pharmacokinetics of hypericum constituents in human breast milk or infant plasma. A mother with post-natal depression was admitted at our service. Her pharmacist had recommended taking a St. John's wort preparation three times a day (Jarsin 300, Lichtwer Pharma AG, Berlin, Germany). Four breast-milk samples (fore and hind milk) during an 18-hour period were analyzed to measure concentration of hypericin and hyperforin. Only hyperforin is excreted into breast milk at a low level, hyperforin and hypericin (two major active components) were below the lower limit of quantification (BLQ: below lower limit of quantification, LQ hypericin: 0.20 ng/ml, LQ hyperforin: 0.50 ng/ml) in this infant's plasma. No side effects were seen in the mother or infant. Before recommending St John's wort for the treatment of depression to women who breastfeed, long-term studies of outcome in infants are needed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.279 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations56
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacopsychiatrySame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207