MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296987183 · doi:10.7759/cureus.29468

Advantages and Disadvantages of Using St. John's Wort as a Treatment for Depression

2022· review· en· W4296987183 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNatural Compound Pharmacology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypericum perforatumPlaceboDepression (economics)HypericumAntidepressantFluoxetineAdverse effectPsychiatrySertralineSerotonin syndromePharmacologySerotonergicAlternative medicineTraditional medicineInternal medicineSerotoninAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: St. John's wort (SJW) extracts are currently being used to treat depression of various degrees of severity. While many studies have shown it to be superior to placebo, data regarding the effectiveness of using SJW as a stand-alone treatment compared with standard antidepressants has yet to be proven conclusively. This study aims to understand the advantages and disadvantages of SJW as a treatment modality for depression. METHODS: The authors searched PubMed, JAMA network, Springer Link, Elsevier, Google Scholar, and Scientific Progress databases, from 2011 through August 2021, using the following keywords: St John's wort, Hypericum perforatum, depression, antidepressant, complementary alternative medicine, economic evaluation depression St. wort, St John's wort and depression, antidepressant interactions. This yielded a total of 27 papers following a thorough removal of irrelevant content and dissemination in languages other than English. RESULTS: In patients with mild and moderate depression, SJW proved superior to placebo. Certain studies comparing the efficacy of SJW versus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), especially fluoxetine, reported SJW to be more efficacious, while the majority reported no significant difference. Tricyclic antidepressants were also found to have similar efficacy as SJW. Moreover, treatment with SJW was also found to reduce postmenopausal depression. Regarding the safety profile, although SJW is better tolerated with fewer adverse effects when compared to standardized antidepressants, its predisposition to causing fatal serotonin syndrome, when used in conjunction with other serotonergic agents and drug interactions noted with CYP 450 drugs, raises a question in the safety profile. CONCLUSION: It is essential to acknowledge that SJW has been used as a treatment measure in Germany. Despite being only listed as a dietary supplement by the FDA and not a drug, SJW has shown to be comparable, if not more efficacious, than most standard treatment options for depression. SJW does prove to be an exciting piece of pharmacotherapy in the realm of mental health and post-menopausal treatment. More prospective studies will help us better understand its efficacy in mild and moderate depression and its ability to serve as a long-term agent. Considering its mechanism of action, its role in relieving patients suffering from an anxiety disorder is also worth considering.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.269 · 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