Safety and efficacy of panax ginseng during pregnancy and lactation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of basic knowledge on the part of both clinicians and patients as to the indications for use and the safety of herbs used by women during pregnancy and lactation. This is one article in a series that systematically reviews the evidence for herbs commonly used during pregnancy and lactation. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the literature for evidence on the use, safety and pharmacology of Panax ginseng, focusing on issues pertaining to pregnancy and lactation. METHODS: We searched 7 electronic databases and compiled data according to the grade of evidence that was found. RESULTS: Based on strong scientific evidence from a cohort study, Panax ginseng was not associated with adverse effects when used during pregnancy. Panax ginseng was misreported in the literature as causing androgenization, when, in fact, the case reported was due to an adulterant. There is in vitro evidence of teratogenicity with exposure to ginsenosides; however, this evidence is derived from animal embryos and is based on exposure to isolated ginsenosides at much higher levels than achievable through normal consumption in humans. There is also conflicting evidence as to whether or not Panax ginseng has estrogenic properties. In lactation, there are no human studies on the safety of Panax ginseng, only in vitro evidence based on three animal studies reporting minimal risk. CONCLUSIONS: Panax ginseng should be consumed with caution during pregnancy, especially during the first trimester, and during lactation. Key words: Panax ginseng, asian ginseng, ginseng, pregnancy, lactation, breastfeeding, systematic review.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".