Open-Label Pilot Study of St. John's Wort in Adolescent Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Clinical experience suggests the use of alternative remedies, such as St. John's Wort (SJW), in adolescents with affective disorders is increasing. In view of the paucity of documented, well-established, and safe antidepressant medications for children and adolescents, it was important to investigate the potential usefulness of SJW in adolescents with major depressive disorders (MDD). METHODS AND RESULTS: An 8-week, open-label study evaluated the potential efficacy and safety of SJW (300 mg TID) in adolescents with MDD. Twenty-six patients, 12-17 years of age (mean age, 14.8 years) were enrolled in the study. Of the 11 patients who completed the study, 9 patients (82%) showed significant clinical improvement based on Clinical Global Improvement (CGI) change scores (treatment response was indicated by a clinical improvement rating of either very much improved or much improved at the final visit). Of the 15 patients (58%) who did not complete the study, 8 patients were noncompliant and 7 patients were discontinued because of persisting or worsening depression. Of the 8 noncompliant patients, at week 8, 2 patients (25%) remained unchanged, 1 patient (12.5%) was minimally improved, 4 patients (75%) were much improved, and 1 patient (12.5%) was very much improved, based on the CGI change score. CONCLUSION: Preliminary findings suggest that SJW is well tolerated and may be clinically effective in the treatment of some adolescents with mild depression. Controlled trials of SJW in adolescents with MDD are suggested.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".