Tulsi (Holy Basil) for Stress
A handful of small, short-term trials suggest Tulsi (Holy Basil) may modestly ease self-reported stress, but the evidence is weak, leans heavily on industry-funded studies, and has no backing from major health authorities. Treat it as unproven rather than a dependable stress remedy.
Why this grade7-layer evidence engine
The grade rests on just three small, short human studies, all pointing in a favorable direction but none strong on their own. The OciBest RCT (PMID 21977056, n=150, 6 weeks) cut self-rated stress symptoms about 39% more than placebo (P<=0.05), and the Holixer RCT (PMID 36185698, n=100, 8 weeks) improved Perceived Stress Scale scores (p=0.003) and lowered hair cortisol (p=0.025). A 2017 systematic review (PMID 28400848) called Tulsi an effective treatment for psychological stress, but it is narrative with no meta-analysis, and only a minority of its 24 studies actually examined stress.
Several weaknesses hold the verdict at Weak. Samples are small, the main outcomes are subjective self-reports, and funding is a real concern: the Holixer trial was sponsored by a supplement maker (Natural Remedies Pty Ltd) with author payments from the industry, and OciBest never disclosed its funding source. That pattern triggered an industry-funding warning flag.
Regulators and clinics offer no meaningful endorsement. The FDA only lists the plant's botanical identifier and has sent warning letters over disease claims; the EU's EFSA has the relevant botanical health claims on hold; the WHO records only a traditional-medicine monograph. Among clinics, only Cleveland Clinic comments, neutrally citing the 2017 review while stressing the evidence is limited, and the NIH, Mayo Clinic, Harvard Health, and psychiatric societies are silent. Note also that medicinal Tulsi (Ocimum sanctum/tenuiflorum) is a different species from common culinary basil.
Scoring transparency
All scores computed by a 7-layer evidence engine — fully auditable▸View the full decision path (audit trail)
- compute_raw_score — 加權公式: L2×0.30 + L3×0.25 + L5×0.25 + L11×0.10 + L1×0.10 = 0.551
- tier_from_score — 依分數區間映射至 tier letter
- apply_hec_rules — 高階證據未達主導 (0 positive vs 1 negative)，由 raw_score 決定
- tier_strict_requirement_check — | B→C 因 scope.conflation_risk=true 且 L11 獨評較低 (B7-2 tier cap)
- detect_disputes — 偵測到 0 個 hard + 1 個 soft dispute
- decide_status — 依 tier + dispute 結果決定 status