Evaluation of herbal medicine use in the obstetric and gynecology department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: Pregnancy is a sensitive period for all synthetic and herbal treatment options. This study aims to classify the herbal medicines used during pregnancy and to determine their usage rates, side effects, and risks, according to safety conditions. Methods: This study was conducted using survey questions directed to pregnant women receiving treatment in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department. Results: 194 people participated in the study. 63 people (32.4%) used 31 different herbal medicines during pregnancy. Commonly used medicines were: Mentha sp. - Citrus limonum, Tilia sp. and Matricaria chamomilla. Herbal medicines were classified in four groups according to their effects, risk and safety during pregnancy. Accordingly, nine herbal medicines were classified as potentially harmful for use in pregnancy at a usage rate of 20.43%. These are mainly Jasminum sp. and Foeniculum vulgare. Conclusion: The findings of this study showed that the use of herbal medicines is common during pregnancy and that potentially harmful herbal medicines are used at high rates during this time. Patients get information about herbal medicines used during pregnancy from unreliable sources. Health care providers should have information about the potential benefits/ harms of herbal medicines when used during pregnancy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".