<i>n</i> -of-1 Randomized Controlled Trials: An Opportunity for Complementary and Alternative Medicine Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practice has traditionally relied on expert opinion and case examples to evaluate the outcome of a particular therapeutic treatment. Such trials are subject to bias, leading to the formation of erroneous conclusions about the effectiveness of most treatments. This paper reviews the feasibility of n-of-1 trials to better evaluate the clinical and statistical significance of CAM therapies. In particular: (1) problems arising from the use of standard therapeutic trials; (2) the n-of-1 trial and data analysis; (3) clinical use and advantages of the n-of-1 trial in conventional medicine; (4) potential clinical uses of the n-of-1 trial in CAM; (5) preliminary guidelines for the use of the n-of-1 trial in CAM; (6) constraints on the use of the n-of-1 trial in CAM; and (7) ethical issues in the conduct of the n-of-1 trial.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.241 | 0.436 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".