Poor-quality studies suggest that vitamin B6 use is beneficial in premenstrual syndrome.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poor-quality studies suggest that vitamin B 6 use is beneficial in premenstrual syndrome QUESTION Is the use of vitamin B 6 (pyridoxine hydrochloride) effective for relieving overall premenstrual symptoms and depressive premenstrual syndrome? DATA SOURCESStudies were identified by searching MEDLINE (1966-1998), EMBASE (1988-1996), PsychLIT (1974-1997), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health) (1982-1997), and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register with the terms premenstrual syndrome, pyridoxine, premenstrual tension, late luteal phase dysphoric disorder, and premenstrual dysphoric disorder.Bibliographies of relevant articles were scanned, and pharmaceutical companies were contacted. STUDY SELECTIONPublished and unpublished studies in any language were selected if they were randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled studies for which data could be acquired.Studies involving multivitamin supplements were included if the supplement contained Ն50 mg of vitamin B 6 .Authors were contacted if additional information was required. DATA EXTRACTIONData were extracted on participants, dose and preparation of vitamin B 6 , outcome measures, results, withdrawals, side effects, and quality scores.Main outcome was subjective lessening of overall premenstrual symptoms, and a secondary outcome was a decrease in depressive premenstrual symptoms.High-quality studies had scores of 3 on the Jadad scale (maximum: 5 points) and of 6 on the authors' quality rating scale (maximum: 8 points).
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 | 0.054 | 0.267 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".