MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214883256 · doi:10.1515/jcim-2021-0417

Trends in the St. John’s wort ( <i>Hypericum perforatum</i> ) research literature: a bibliometric analysis

2021· article· en· W3214883256 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Complementary and Integrative Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNatural Compound Pharmacology Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsHypericum perforatumHypericumBibliometricsAlternative medicineMedicineTraditional medicineLibrary scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: ) has been used in traditional medicine for centuries for different conditions, including kidney and lung ailments, insomnia, depression, and to aid wound healing. The objective of the present bibliometric analysis is to capture the characteristics of research publications on the topic of St. John's wort. METHODS: Searches were run on April 09, 2021, and results were exported on the same day to prevent discrepancies between daily database updates. Trends associated with this subset of publications were identified and presented. Bibliometric networks were constructed and visualized using the software tool VOSviewer. RESULTS: A total of 1,970 publications were published by 5,849 authors across 961 journals from 1859 to 2021. Beginning in the late 1990s, a steep increase was found in the volume of publication on this topic. The journal that published the largest number of publications was Phytotherapy Research. The most productive countries included Germany and the United States. CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides the characteristics of the St. John's wort literature that allows understanding of the past, present, and future of research in this area. It is a useful evidence-based framework on which to base future research actions and academic directions.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.108
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it