Consumer Use of St. John's Wort: A Survey on Effectiveness, Safety, and Tolerability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite its poorly described pharmacology, effectiveness, and safety, use of St. John's wort (SJW) is largely unsupervised and unexplored, and can potentially lead to adverse outcomes. We conducted a telephone survey of 43 subjects who had taken SJW to assess demographics, psychiatric and medical conditions, dosage, duration of use, reason for use, side effects, concomitant drugs, professional consultation, effectiveness, relapse, and withdrawal effects. Most subjects reported taking SJW for depression, and 74% did not seek medical advice. Mean dosage was 475.6+/-360 mg/day (range 300-1200 mg/day) and mean duration of therapy was 7.3+/-10.1 weeks (range 1 day-5 yrs). Among 36 (84%) reporting improvement, 18 (50%) had a psychiatric diagnosis. Twenty (47%) reported side effects, resulting in discontinuation in five (12%) and one emergency room visit. Two consumers experienced symptoms of serotonin syndrome and three reported food-drug interactions. Thirteen consumers experienced withdrawal symptoms and two had a depressive relapse. These data suggest the need for greater consumer and provider awareness of the potential risks of SJW in self-care of depression and related syndromes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".