Herbal-drug therapy interactions: A focus on dementia
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
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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