Regulatory issues concerning the safety, efficacy and quality of herbal remedies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Herbal remedies and alternative medicines are used throughout the world, and in the past herbs were often the original sources of most drugs. Today we are witnessing an increase in herbal remedy use throughout the Western world raising the question as to how safe are these preparations for the unborn fetus? Many women use herbal products during pregnancy. The dilemma facing most regulatory authorities is that the public considers these products as either traditional medicines or natural food supplements. The user sees no reason for regulation. Most countries have laws concerning foods, drugs, and cosmetics, the details of which seldom clearly define to what section of the law and regulations alternative remedies belong. In most countries alternative remedies are regulated as foods, provided that no medicinal claim is made on the label. The global regulatory sector, however, is changing rapidly. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in Australia created a Complimentary Medicines Evaluation Committee in late 1997 to address this issue, and Canada has created a new Natural Health Products Directorate in the realigned Therapeutic Products and Foods Branch in 2000. In parallel, the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products has drafted test procedures and acceptance criteria for herbal drug preparations and herbal medicinal products. In the US, the Food and Drug Administration classifies these natural products as dietary supplements. Manufacturers must label a dietary supplement thus: "this statement has not been evaluated by the FDA [, and] this product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease." Whether these products are foods or drugs is undecided. To add complexity to this issue, most of the potential deleterious effects of natural products on the unborn may be related to hormonal effects (e.g., phytoestrogens) and nutriceutical drug interactions (e.g., St. John's Wort and antidepressants), rather than direct embryotoxicity per se. We suggest that ensuring quality of herbal products should receive immediate attention by regulatory authorities, before embarking on the more arduous tasks of safety and efficacy.
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 | 0.078 | 0.158 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".