MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037262438 · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(00)00457-7

St. John's wort has no effect on pain in polyneuropathy

2001· article· en· W2037262438 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Søren H. Sindrup, Claus Madsen, Flemming W. Bach, Lars F. Gram, Troels S. Jensen

Bibliographic record

VenuePain · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNatural Compound Pharmacology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolyneuropathyMedicineAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tricyclic antidepressants are the mainstay of treatment of painful polyneuropathy but cannot be used in a substantial number of patients. St. John's wort is a herbal antidepressant, which may act via mechanisms similar to the tricyclics. The aim of this study was to test if St. John's wort would relieve painful polyneuropathy. The study design was randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled and cross-over. Fifty-four patients were assigned to one of the two treatment sequences. The daily dose of St. John's wort was three tablets each containing 900 microg totalhypericin. During the two treatment periods of 5 weeks duration, patients rated constant pain, lancinating pain paroxysms, touch-evoked pain and pain on pressure by use of 0--10 point numeric rating scales. Forty-seven patients -- 18 diabetics and 29 non-diabetics -- completed the study. There was a trend of lower total pain score (sum of the individual pain scores) on St. John's wort than on placebo (median 14 vs. 15, P=0.05). None of the individual pain ratings were significantly changed by St. John's wort as compared to placebo (P=0.09--0.33). Complete, good or moderate pain relief was experienced by nine patients with St. John's wort and two with placebo (P=0.07). In conclusion, St. John's wort has no significant effect on pain in polyneuropathy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations51
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePainSame topicNatural Compound Pharmacology StudiesFrench-language works237,207