MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Effects of St. John's Wort Extract and Amitriptyline on Autonomic Responses of Blood Vessels and Sweat Glands in Healthy Volunteers

2004· article· en· W2044758159 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Martin Siepmann, Wilhelm Kirch, Stephanie Krause, Peter Joraschky, Michael Müeck‐Weymann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Psychopharmacology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmitriptylinePlaceboMedicineCrossover studyHeart rateSWEATAnesthesiaPharmacologyBlood pressureInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

St. John's wort extract is widely used and advertised as a "natural antidepressant" lacking autonomic side effects. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study compared the effects of St. John's wort extract on autonomic responses of blood vessels and sweat glands with those of amitriptyline and placebo. A randomized, double-blind, crossover study was performed in healthy male volunteers aged 22 to 31 years (25 +/- 3 years; mean +/- SD) years. Subjects orally received capsules with 255 to 285 mg St. John's wort extract (900 microg hypericin content), 25 mg amitriptyline, and placebo 3 times daily for periods of 14 days each with at least 14 days between. Vasoconstrictory response of cutaneous blood flow (VR) and skin conductance response (SR) following a single deep inspiration were employed as parameters of autonomic function. St. John's wort extract had no effect on VR and SR. In contrast, SR was diminished and the dilation phase of VR was prolonged following multiple dosing with amitriptyline (P < 0.05). Decreased electrodermal reactivity observed with amitriptyline reflects inhibition of acetylcholine at peripheral m3-cholinoreceptors, whereas prolongation of VR induced by the tricyclic drug may be due to sustained activation of central and/or peripheral sympathetic neurons.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.677
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PsychopharmacologySame topicOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207