MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W126068090 · doi:10.1093/pch/10.4.201

The CAM network – Challenges and opportunities

2005· article· en· W126068090 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael Rieder

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Western Ontario
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchChildren’s Hospital of Wisconsin Research InstituteChildren's Health Research Institute
KeywordsComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past two decades, there has been an increase in both interest in and use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) among patients in the developed world. This has been best documented among adult patients, but it is increasingly clear that CAM is more widely used by families for the treatment of children, especially children with chronic diseases. The frequency of CAM use among children with some chronic disorders approaches 70%. The increase in interest in CAM is related to a number of factors: cultural belief in the use of traditional medicines, the assumption that natural therapies are more likely to be safe, and the unfortunate fact that our ability to control many chronic diseases and the adverse effects of conventional therapy is less than optimal. This presents a problem for the child health care practitioner. First, many parents are reluctant to disclose to the practitioner that they are using CAM for fear of damaging the doctor-patient relationship or of being labelled a CAM user. Second, even when families do disclose the use of CAM, the child health care worker is often faced with a paucity of reliable information on the efficacy and safety of these preparations, notably when used in combination with conventional medications. This is unfortunate for all concerned because there is increasing evidence that CAM may be more efficacious, but also less safe, than was previously believed. As an example, we now know that St John's wort is a moderately effective agent in the treatment of moderate depression. It is also known that St John's wort is a modestly effective inhibitor of CYP3A4, the isozyme of the cytochrome responsible for 50% of human drug metabolism via cytochrome P450, including the metabolism of cyclosporine, nifedipine and nelfinavir. An additional example is the fact that many therapeutic products (ranging from antibiotics to immunosuppressives) originated from natural products. Teaching about CAM in the undergraduate and postgraduate medical curriculum of most conventional practitioners ranges from scant to none. Thus, the child health care practitioner is faced with a major knowledge gap in terms of providing optimal therapy for children and their families. In this context, the development of PedCAM, a child-focused CAM Network, is a welcome development. What is the promise of such a network? First, it provides an opportunity for clinicians and researchers with an interest in CAM to interact on a regular basis with people with similar interests. This includes the opportunity to collaborate with international partners. The development of National Institutes of Health-supported research units in the United States and international groups such as the Consortium for the Globalization of Chinese Medicine suggests that there is rich potential in such collaborations. This leads to the second opportunity, which is the development of research projects to assess the safety, efficacy and optimal use of CAM to help guide practitioners to use the right therapy for the right patient. The third opportunity is the dissemination of validated evidence-based information about the appropriate use of CAM to the general community of child health care workers and families. The development of a network also raises challenges. An effective network requires professionals from diverse backgrounds, often with quite different skill sets and, possibly, quite different world views, to work in a collaborative manner that recognizes and respects these differences. One of these differences involves the generation of evidence-based approaches, which for some traditional practitioners constitutes a very different philosophy from the one with which they have been trained and practice. As well, conventional practitioners with ingrained prejudices against CAM will need to adopt a more open-minded attitude if the synergistic potential of combination approaches is to be achieved. Special challenges in evaluating CAM include the identification of the species of plants used, the purity of the products under evaluation, the difference in interventions produced by different growing conditions and variations on the part of individual practitioners, and the potential for adulteration of the interventions being studied. An additional challenge related to working with children is the general lack of knowledge with respect to therapeutics in this population, including the use of conventional medication. In addition to the challenges related to working with CAM and with children, there are the generic problems of running a network, including the need for a robust infrastructure, excellent communication, effective leadership and the need to deal with the fatigue that can affect network members once the initial enthusiasm of the network fades. Having said all of this, the potential for a CAM network is tremendous, especially if, as noted above, this can be accompanied by collaboration on initiatives to improve the understanding of the use of conventional therapies in children. The use of CAM in children is common, and for children with many chronic diseases, CAM is the norm. Understanding the potential roles of CAM and conventional therapy, including selecting the correct patients for therapy, and determining the efficacy, safety and interaction data is of critical importance to the common goal of child health practitioners, which is to provide the best treatment to the children under their care. Thus, the development of a paediatric CAM network is of interest to a number of parties, and those interested in obtaining further information are encouraged to visit the PedCAM Web site at . Dr Rieder holds the GSK-CIHR Chair in Paediatric Clinical Pharmacology at the University of Western Ontario. Dr Rieder's research is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Robarts Research Institute and the Children's Health Research Institute.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.007
Scholarly communication0.0170.029
Open science0.0060.018
Research integrity0.0200.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0840.021

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207