Potential Interactions Between Pharmaceuticals and Natural Health Products in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study sought to measure the extent to which potentially interacting combinations of natural health products (NHPs) and drugs are used in the Canadian adult population. Data were obtained from the Statistics Canada 2000-2001 National Population Health Survey. A total of 11 424 adults completed the survey. Of the survey participants, 9.3% reported the use of at least 1 natural health product in the prior 2 days. Among natural health product users, 57% also used a conventional medicine with systemic exposure in the same time period. A minimum of 1 potential drug-NHP interaction was identified in 28.4% of such combination users. Most interactions (90%) were of unknown clinical significance. Female gender, older age, lower education, and the presence of diabetes and high blood pressure were associated with a higher risk of having at least 1 potential interaction. Health professionals need to maintain a working knowledge of common potential drug-NHP interactions, to dialogue with all patients regarding the use of natural health products, and to remain vigilant in reporting all suspected interactions and adverse events involving natural health products. Regulatory agencies should also capture and assess reports of drug-NHP interactions more effectively.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".