Development of Hazardous Materials Management Standard for Decoction Type of Personalized Herbal Medicine
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".