Identifying Herbal Adverse Events From Spontaneous Reporting Systems Using Taxonomic Name Resolution Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy and safety of herbal supplements suffer from challenges due to non-uniform representation of ingredient terms within biomedical and observational health data sources. The nature of how supplement data are reported within Spontaneous Reporting Systems (SRS) can limit analyses of supplement-associated adverse events due to the use of incorrect nomenclature or failing to identify herbs. This study aimed to extract, standardize, and summarize supplement-relevant reports from two SRSs: (1) Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and (2) Canada Vigilance Adverse Reaction (CVAR) database. A thesaurus of plant names was developed and integrated with a mapping and normalization approach that accommodated misspellings and variants. The reports gathered from FAERS between the years 2004 and 2016 show 185,915 herbal and 7,235,330 non-herbal accounting for 2.51%. The data from CVAR found 36,940 reports of herbal and 503,580 non-herbal reports between the years 1965 and 2017 for a total of 6.83%. Although not all cases were actual adverse events due to numerous variables and incomplete reporting, it is interesting to note that the herbs most frequently reported and significantly associated with adverse events were as follows: Avena sativa (Oats), Cannabis sativa (marijuana), Digitalis purpurea (foxglove), Humulus lupulus (hops), Hypericum perforatum (St John’s Wort), Paullinia cupana (guarana), Phleum pretense (timothy-grass), Silybum marianum (milk thistle), Taraxacum officinale (Dandelion), and Valeriana officinalis (valerian). Using a scalable approach for mapping and resolution of herb names allowed data-driven exploration of potential adverse events from sources that have remained isolated in this specific area of research. The results from this study highlight several herb-associated safety issues providing motivation for subsequent in-depth analyses, including those that focus on the scope and severity of potential safety issues with supplement use.
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".