Herbal medicines: challenges in the modern world. Part 4. Canada and United States
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Similar to other nations North American people used herbs for thousands of years to treat diseases and purify their spirits. By the middle of the 1900s, evidence-based conventional medicine received wide acceptance in Canada and the United States (US). Nowadays, people are going back to their roots and actively using herbal medicines (HMs) and natural health products (NHPs). Areas covered: This article is focusing on use and regulation of the HMs and NHPs in Canada and the US, raises concerns regarding HM and NHP safety and efficacy, offers suggestions on how to overcome these problems. Materials available from legislative and governmental websites, PubMed and news media were used. Expert commentary: Use of HMs, especially dietary supplements is widespread among adults in Canada and US. HMs and NHPs are regulated in both countries, but minimum criteria for product approval and post-market surveillance have been set. Concerns of quality, contamination, adulteration, and efficacy in are of central importance in the discussion of HMs and NHPs. Detailed product description and research are of vital importance to ensure safety and efficacy of these products. Additionally, 'herbal' education of healthcare providers and patients is needed to guarantee further successful integration of HM and conventional medicines.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it