Effects of ST. John's wort on depressive disorder in elderly patients with hypertension and diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the clinical curative effect of ST. John's wort(SWE) on depressive disorder in elderly patients with hypertension and diabetes. Methods 106 hypertensive patients with diabe-tes and depressive disorder were randomly assigned to SWE group (n = 30) ,psychotherapy group (n = 24) , physicotherapy group (n =28) and placebo group (n = 26) for 12 weeks' treatment. The clinical effect were evaluated separately with reduction percent of HAMD and after the treatment, blood pressure levels and HbA1c were monitored. Results (1) The reduction percent of HAMD was highest(80%) in SWE group, lower in physieotherapy and psychotherapy group (50% and 54.2%), well lowest in placebo group(37%), the difference was significant(P < 0.05). The effect of SWE was better than that of the others (P < 0.05). (2) The level of blood pressure in SWE was significant lower than that of the others(P < 0.05). (3) The lev-el of HbA1c in SWE group was significant lower than that of the others(P < 0.05). Conclusion SWE can efficiently improve the depressive disorder in elderly patients with hypertension and diabetes, and it is good for controlling blood pressure and HbA1c of the patients. Key words: Hypertension; Diabetes mellitus; Depressive disorder; Psychotherapy; Physicotherapy
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".