Talk:Salvia officinalis

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: TitoJeffries.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Salvia officinalis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071126035307/http://www.appliedhealth.com:80/nutri/page8453.php to http://www.appliedhealth.com/nutri/page8453.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

eat raw? toxicity levels?
Assuming reliable sources can be found, this article needs to discuss the safety of eating sage raw, & how much sage is toxic. For example, can it be used daily? — Lentower (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's very difficult to find sources for this kind of thing. Toxicity studies are done using animals, not humans. I have a source that warns against extended daily use and suggests that 15 grams may have some toxic effects in humans (but it is not clear if that is 15 grams of fresh sage, dried sage, or concentrated sage oil). A dose of sage oil that is lethal to rats is equivalent to about 225 grams in an average sized human.Plantdrew (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you reveal your source? Reify-tech (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Cultivation
More information needs to be added about growing the herb indoors and outdoors – its soil depth, fertility, and pH preferences, light requirements, hardiness zone, etc. Reify-tech (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

acute myeloid leukemia cells and salvia officinalis
A study was done with salvia officinalis and other plants that were extracted and mixed with ethanol to make a solution. this solution was used to help prevent the growth of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cells inside the human body. The study was done by Zhamenbayeva et al. and although the Salvia officinalis prevented the growth of AML cells, this is not a medical way to completely stop AML cells from growing in the body. this is a good start and another method to help with the process of stopping AML cells altogether. TitoJeffries (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Robert Jeffries (tito)

Improving mood, Anxiety, and Performance
A study by Kennedy et al. consisted of a double blind, placebo controlled experiment that used the obvious placebo and dried Salvia officinalis leaves. The mood was shown to improve by showing significant scores on the State Trait Anxiety Invntory (STAI). Significant, improved scores of the Defined Intensity Stress Simulator (DISS) was the results from measure stress in a computerized multitasking sequence. TitoJeffries (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Robert Jeffries (Tito) 10/26/16

Cultivator: Salvia lavandulaefolia
A cultivator of Salvia officinalis has the same effects to the boy that S. officinalis has. Improving memory and cognitive performances in humans have been shown in studies using S. lavandulaefolia. Significant results using word recall were found when young adults volunteered in studies using S. lavandulaefolia. TitoJeffries (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Robert Jeffries (tito) 10/26/16

Health Effects
This is the current section on Health:

"There is no good evidence that essential oils have any beneficial effect on brain function.[11]"

Here is a direct quote from the source article, "Herbal Extracts and Phytochemicals: Plant Secondary Metabolites and the Enhancement of Human Brain Function," from the section on sage

"A number of double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, balanced-crossover studies in healthy humans have demonstrated improved memory (174–176), attention/executive function (176, 177), and mood (175, 177) following single doses of cholinesterase-inhibiting sage extracts or essential oils. The most recent study investigated the effects of a monoterpenoid SL essential oil with high levels of 1,8-cineole and an IC50 for AChE inhibition at one-tenth of the concentration previously seen. Single doses administered to healthy adults were shown to improve attention, memory, and working memory/executive function task performance and to increase subjective alertness (106). A single, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in a small cohort (n = 30) of AD patients also demonstrated improved cognitive functioning (Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale, cognitive sub scale) and behavioral function (Clinical Dementia Rating) following a16-wk administration of a Salvia officials alcoholic tincture (178)."

So what we have here is a chemical mechanism (acetylcholinesterase inhibition) and multiple randomized, double-blinded, balanced placebo-controlled studies showing effects on cognitive and psychological measures. Can someone explain how this is not "good evidence"?

I believe that the editor who is responsible for the current section is referencing the following line from the introduction: "As an example, ~20% of the population of the US takes herbal products, often in the absence of any good evidence of their effectiveness"

Two things to note. First, this does not refer to sage specifically, only to herbal products in general, so it is certainly less applicable to this article than the section specifically about sage. Second, it doesn't say that there is no good evidence for effectiveness of any herbal product, only that herbal products in general are often used without being supported by evidence; in other words, there is not good evidence for the effectiveness of every herbal product that is used; only for some of them.

So, on the grounds that more specific and applicable information is in the cited study, I think the health section should be changed. The current section would give a reader the impression that there is no evidence of health effects of sage, which is simply not true. So why are we saying it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:8100:A39F:8D59:2496:12F5:D1F6 (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Because we need to reflect the overall paper, which goes on to discuss the weakness in the research. From the paper's conclusion (my bolds):
 * Thus overall despite the research, there is no good evidence of a health effect from Salvia officinalis. Cherry picking stuff out of the source to arrive at a different conclusion than the source itself, is problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thus overall despite the research, there is no good evidence of a health effect from Salvia officinalis. Cherry picking stuff out of the source to arrive at a different conclusion than the source itself, is problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Read what you quoted. It refers to caffeine, nicotine, cur cumin, resveratol, and EGCG, ginkgo biloba, and valerian root. Are any of those salvia officials, or components of it? And regardless, there's a big difference between "no good evidence" and "somewhat equivocal" evidence. Your summary is biased. I think a good compromise would be a summary of sage-specific' information with the caveat that herbal information in general is based on small-scale studies and is still somewhat equivocal. How would you feel about that?98.215.0.144 (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So the qualification that applies is "... failed to progress beyond relatively small scale human studies" i.e. there is a lack of good evidence. n=30 is not something on which this review, or Wikipedia, is going to make statements about positive health effects. Also, you appear to be edit-warring with multiple IP addresses now, which could get you blocked and/or the page locked. Alexbrn (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (Add) you are also copy/pasting from copyright material into Wikipedia, which is a problem see WP:COPYVIO/WP:PLAGIARISM. Alexbrn (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice! And while I appreciate your attempt at compromise, I think "it is of such poor quality..." is a strong statement to make unless you're critiquing specific studies rather than just citing a review paper, given that the review does not criticize sage studies specifically, only makes general comments about the overall study of herbal products. Any placebo-controlled double-blind RCT (which was the case with sage) meets a certain standard of quality, even if n is low. You make it sound like junk science, whereas I would argue it falls under the category of promising preliminary research, especially given that it has a proven molecular mechanism. Thoughts? 2601:240:8100:A39F:8D59:2496:12F5:D1F6 (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The source says "debased" which is strong. The claim that any medicine has any effect is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim and needs exceptional strong and clear sourcing. Pretty much all research claims it is "promising" - it's just medical writing verbiage which we shouldn't translate into lay terms. Alexbrn (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you're the one who's translating. I used the word promising because the authors of the paper used it repeatedly. You, however, are translating what the authors said into a harsh judgement of sage studies despite the opinion of the authors being more balanced. Furthermore, you switched from the Kennedy & Wightman paper to this one for some reason, and it appears to have been poorly translated, or written by a non-native speaker of English. From the conclusion:

"Unfortunately, promising beneficial effects showed in clinical studies are debased by methodological issues, use of different herbal preparations (extracts, essential oil, use of raw material), [and] lack of details on herbal products used, which together prevent to reach definitive conclusions on sage effectiveness in producing positive effects in healthy subjects or patients affected by cognitive impairment. On the light of these considerations, we believe that sage promising effects need further higher methodological standard clinical trials taking into account gaps raised by this review."

Given the poor quality of English in this paper you've chosen to cite now, I would question any opinion based on a single word found in it. The research is equivocal; the word equivocal is perfect for this situation. It is promising because effects were found, even if the effects or numbers of subjects in the studies were small. Not promising would be if, for example, the studies had found no effects. This is equivocal. 140.194.194.252 (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * None of the papers on this are particularly good, and the old one fell afoul of WP:MEDDATE. We don't transpose medical journal speak into Wikipedia verbatim because it is often subtly misleading (for example, "more research is needed" is deprecated by MOS:MED). Likewise, "promising" is a term of art which unduly implies effectiveness in a lay context. We know the research is fundamentally flawed, so implying anything positive would be off-base. We're pretty good as it is (and with more recent sources now). Alexbrn (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it's much better now. However, I think the current language is an emphatic condemnation of the studies, whereas the review suggests that there are problems with them and higher standards are necessary as research continues. Laypeople who are accustomed to the media's all-or-nothing approach would read the current article and think that the research thus far means absolutely nothing; a scientist would read the review and think "they need to replicate these studies but with larger sample sizes and better controls." I think we should try to reflect that more refined scientific mindset. What about "...but due to significant methodological problems, no firm conclusions can be drawn"?140.194.194.252 (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That would work for me, so long as we steer clear of "promise". Alexbrn (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Excelsior!140.194.194.252 (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Linking to Smudging?
I have doubts that common sage, a European herb, was traditionally used by American Indigenous people. Also, a quick check of citation shows no evidence common sage is used in. I would strongly suggest adding citation for this or removing the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fea8:bca0:773:f8ac:9072:38ad:d783 (talk) 12:06, 2019 July 31 (UTC)

Gaba Neuron channel inhibitor
Salvia, as caffeine, are Gaba channel inhibitors. Increasing nervous feeling,...

--188.171.58.76 (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Photo in species box
I'm not thrilled by the photo in the species box. I think the one presently there is not everything that a photo of such an important plant should be. I've started digging around in wikimedia commons but so far I'm not finding anything that is clearly better. For example:







Am I being too harsh on photo #1, would is significantly improve the look of the article? Am I not finding a trove of great sage photos somewhere in the commons? Suggestions? Comments? MtBotany (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)