St John's wort or sertraline? Randomized controlled trial in primary care.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the change in severity of depressive symptoms and occurrence of side effects in primary care patients treated with St John's wort (SJW) and sertraline. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized 12-week trial. SETTING: Community-based offices of 12 family physicians practising in greater Montreal, Que. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-seven men and women with major depression and an initial score of > or = 16 on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (Ham-D). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to treatment with either sertraline (50 to 100 mg/d) or SJW (900 to 1800 mg/d) in a double-blind fashion. Assessment of depression was done at entry and at 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks using the Ham-D, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and a questionnaire asking about compliance and side effects. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes from baseline in Ham-D and BDI scores and self-reported side effects. RESULTS: There were no important differences in changes in mean Ham-D and BDI scores (using intention-to-treat analysis), with and without adjustment for baseline demographic characteristics, between the two groups at 12 weeks. Significantly more side effects were reported in the sertraline group than in the SJW group at 2 and 4 weeks' follow up. CONCLUSION: The more benign side effects of SJW make it a good first choice for this patient population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".