MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127723147 · doi:10.1155/2015/120679

Adverse Psychiatric Effects Associated with Herbal Weight-Loss Products

2015· review· en· W2127723147 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Francesco Saverio Bersani, Marialuce Coviello, Claudio Imperatori, Marta Francesconi, Christina M. Hough, Giuseppe Valeriani, Gianfranco De Stefano, Flaminia Bolzan Mariotti Posocco, Rita Santacroce, Amedeo Minichino, Ornella Corazza

Bibliographic record

VenueBioMed Research International · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean CommissionPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of CanadaCanadian Centre on Substance Use and AddictionWorld Health Organization
KeywordsOvereatingWeight lossMedicineExacerbationAdverse effectObesityPsychiatryEnvironmental healthPharmacologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obesity and overeating are among the most prevalent health concerns worldwide and individuals are increasingly using performance and image-enhancing drugs (PIEDs) as an easy and fast way to control their weight. Among these, herbal weight-loss products (HWLPs) often attract users due to their health claims, assumed safety, easy availability, affordable price, extensive marketing, and the perceived lack of need for professional oversight. Reports suggest that certain HWLPs may lead to onset or exacerbation of psychiatric disturbances. Here we review the available evidence on psychiatric adverse effects of HWLPs due to their intrinsic toxicity and potential for interaction with psychiatric medications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.197
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations39
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioMed Research InternationalSame topicComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207