Herbal-drug therapy interactions: A focus on dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older people with dementia are often prescribed numerous medications. Use of herbal therapies in addition to these conventional drug therapies may lead to interactions that result in an adverse drug event. We have conducted a systematic review to identify all studies that examined interactions between herbal and conventional drug therapies (i.e. prescription or over-the-counter). Using a MEDLINE search of English-language studies published between 1980 and 2000, we limited our search to those herbal therapies most likely to be used for the treatment of dementia (memory loss and decreased concentration) and related symptoms. We identified 28 articles that describe interactions between these herbal (i.e. St. John's wort, ginkgo biloba, kava, valerian, and ginseng) and conventional drug therapies. Of these articles, 11 examined St. John's wort, four examined ginkgo biloba, five examined kava, one examined valerian, and seven examined ginseng. We identified a series of potential interactions between herbal and conventional drug therapy that place older people at risk for an adverse drug event. Health care professionals need to be aware of these potential interactions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".