The Safety of Cruciferous Plants in Humans: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some cruciferous plants may serve as preventive treatments for several medical conditions; our objective was to systematically investigate their safety in humans. Four electronic databases were searched, and, of 10,831 references identified, 50 were included. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers, whereafter the association between interventions and adverse events was assessed. Adverse events in 53 subjects were identified through clinical trials; of these, altered drug metabolism was rated as certainly/likely caused by cruciferous plants. Adverse events in 1247 subjects were identified through observational studies, of which none received high causality ratings. Adverse events in 35 subjects were identified through case reports, of which allergies and warfarin resistance were rated as certainly/likely caused by cruciferous plants. We conclude that cruciferous plants are safe in humans, with the exception of allergies. Individuals treated with warfarin should consult their physician. Further investigation of uses of cruciferous plants in preventative medicine is warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".