Effects of Hypericum perforatum (St. John's wort) on hot flashes and quality of life in perimenopausal women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this pilot double-blind, randomized clinical trial, which initially targeted breast cancer survivors, was to obtain preliminary evidence of the effect of Hypericum perforatum extract (St. John's wort extract) compared with placebo on symptoms and quality of life of symptomatic perimenopausal women. We also assessed practical difficulties in recruiting women to such a trial. METHODS: Symptomatic perimenopausal women aged 40 to 65 years who experience hot flashes (three or more per day, Heart and Estrogen/Progestin Replacement Study scale) were randomly assigned to receive ethanolic St. John's wort extract (900 mg TID) or placebo. The women were asked to keep a daily diary during the week before randomization and during the week before the 3-month follow-up (primary outcome) to record hot flash frequency and intensity. A hot flash score (frequency x severity) was calculated. The Menopause-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire was used to assess menopause-specific quality of life. RESULTS: Forty-seven women were randomized. After 12 weeks of treatment, a nonsignificant difference favoring the St. John's wort group was observed in the daily hot flash frequency (St. John's wort, -2.3 +/- 3.6; placebo, -1.0 +/- 2.2; P = 0.11) and the hot flash score (-3.8 +/- 8.3 and -1.8 +/- 6.5, respectively; P = 0.10). After 3 months of treatment, compared with the placebo group, women in the St. John's wort group reported significantly better menopause-specific quality of life (P = 0.01) and significantly fewer sleep problems (P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Hypericum perforatum may improve quality of life in ways that are important to symptomatic perimenopausal women, but these results need to be confirmed by a larger clinical trial.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".