Development of Hazardous Materials Management Standard for Decoction Type of Personalized Herbal Medicine
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
OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to development of hazardous materials management standards for the decoction type of personalized herbal medicines (PHMs). METHODS: This study was conducted in two stages. We searched documents about criteria to use words such as 'Herb', 'Herbal medicine', and 'Botanical Drug' and summarized the results. We organized the committee consisted of seven experts, and held two meetings to reach an agreement on hazardous management standards of the decoction type of PHMs. RESULTS: The seven documents were presented in the literature review and six items related to hazardous management standards of decoction were identified. The second expert meeting brought that a total of six items, including heavy metal, pesticide residues, sulfur dioxide, benzopyrene, mycotoxin, and micro-organism limits, were selected for safety management of decoction type of PHMs. Also, the criteria and test methods for each standard were suggested for monitoring the decoction type of PHMs. CONCLUSION: The study suggested hazardous material management standards and criteria for the decoction types of PHMs. In the future, it would be necessary to conduct a pilot test to ensure the validity and credibility of the safety management standard and criteria. Furthermore, the government level safety management system should be introduced to verify the safety of decoction 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it