Perspectives of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practitioners in the support and treatment of infertility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infertility patients are increasingly using complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) to supplement or replace conventional fertility treatments. The objective of this study was to determine the roles of CAM practitioners in the support and treatment of infertility. METHODS: Ten semi-structured interviews were conducted in Ottawa, Canada in 2011 with CAM practitioners who specialized in naturopathy, acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine, hypnotherapy and integrated medicine. RESULTS: CAM practitioners played an active role in both treatment and support of infertility, using a holistic, interdisciplinary and individualized approach. CAM practitioners recognized biological but also environmental and psychosomatic determinants of infertility. Participants were receptive to working with physicians, however little collaboration was described. CONCLUSIONS: Integrated infertility patient care through both collaboration with CAM practitioners and incorporation of CAM's holistic, individualized and interdisciplinary approaches would greatly benefit infertility patients.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".