Safety and efficacy of St. John's wort (hypericum) 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 safety of herbal medicines in pregnancy and lactation. This is one article in a series that systematically reviews the evidence for commonly used herbs during pregnancy and lactation. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the literature for evidence on the use, safety, and pharmacology of St. John's wort focusing on issues pertaining to pregnancy and lactation. METHODS: We searched 7 electronic databases and compiled data according to the grade of evidence found. RESULTS: There is very weak scientific evidence based on a case report that St Johns wort is of minimal risk when taken during pregnancy. There is in vitro evidence from animal studies that St John's wort during pregnancy does not affect cognitive development nor cause long-term behavioral defects, but may lower offspring birth weight. There is weak scientific evidence that St. John's wort use during lactation does not affect maternal milk production nor affect infant weight, but, in a few cases, may cause colic, drowsiness or lethargy. There is weak scientific evidence that St John's wort induces CYP450 enzymes, which may lower serum medication levels below therapeutic range; this may be of concern when administering medications during pregnancy and lactation. CONCLUSIONS: Caution is warranted with the use of St John's wort during pregnancy until further high quality human research is conducted to determine its safety. St John's wort use during lactation appears to be of minimal risk, but may cause side effects. Caution is warranted when using medications along with St John's wort.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".