Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use by Patients Chronically Infected with Hepatitis C Virus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is becoming increasingly popular in North America. The use of CAM is also popular in patients with chronic liver disease but is not well documented. The extent of use of CAM in chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infected patients was determined, and the demographic and clinical data between users and nonusers of CAM was compared. Seventy-six patients (30% female) with chronic HCV were interviewed. The mean age was 43+/-8 years. Current use of CAM for HCV was reported by 35 of 76 patients (46%). Eighteen of 76 patients within this group used herbal supplements (24%). The most commonly used herb was Silybum marianum (milk thistle), reported by 10 of 76 patients (13.2%). Commonly reported benefits of CAM use included reduction in fatigue, boost in the immune system and improved gastrointestinal function. No adverse effects of CAM use were reported. In the present study, four of 18 patients (22%) with chronic liver disease taking herbal therapies were on herbs that increased bleeding time. The use of CAM in chronic HCV patients is significant. Patients should be asked specifically about their use of CAM. CAM use may have implications affecting conventional treatment and management of HCV.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".