Integrative Cancer Care in a US Academic Cancer Centre: The Memorial Sloan–Kettering Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various surveys show that interest in complementary and alternative medicine (cam) is high among cancer patients. Patients want to explore all options that may help their treatment. Many cam modalities offer patients an active role in their self-care, and the resulting sense of empowerment is very appealing. On the other hand, many unscrupulous marketeers promote alternative cancer “cures,” targeting cancer patients who are particularly vulnerable. Some alternative therapies can hurt patients by delaying effective treatment or by causing adverse effects or detrimental interactions with other medications. It is not in the best interest of cancer patients if they cannot get appropriate guidance on the use of cam from the health care professionals who are part of their cancer care team. The Integrative Medicine Service at Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center in New York was established in 1999 to address patient interest in cam, to incorporate helpful complementary therapies into each patient’s overall treatment management, to guide patients in avoiding harmful alternative therapies, and to develop prospective research to evaluate the efficacy of cam modalities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".