MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2402014311

[Highly dosed St. John's wort extract improves quality of life].

2004· article· en· W2402014311 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
G. Rudolf, Karin Zeller

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTolerabilityMedicineDepression (economics)Quality of life (healthcare)Adverse effectMental healthPsychiatryInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: Aim of the post-marketing surveillance was to investigate if the single-dose-administration of highlydosed St. John's Wort extract improves quality of life of patients with depressive symptoms. METHOD: During a twelve week treatment 4337 patients with depression were observed. Mental and physical state of health were documented using the SF-12-sumscore as a measure for quality of life. Further efficacy and tolerability was rated by physician and patient. Adverse drug reactions were documented as well. RESULTS: During therapy the mental and the physical SF-12-sumscore had improved significantly. At the end ofthe observation the values rise up to the norm. About 80 percent of the physicians and patients marked the drug's efficacy as good or very good. Tolerability was assessed as good or very good in more than 95%. CONCLUSION: A post-marketing surveillance including 4337 depressive patients shows that a single-dose therapy with highly dosed St. John's Wort extract causes to improve significantly the quality of life. The patients suffered from mild to moderate depression.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→French-language works237,207→