Is Complementary and Alternative Healthcare Use Associated with Better Outcomes in Children with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were (1) to examine the association between the use of complementary and alternative healthcare (CAHC) and subsequent health outcomes; and (2) to explore the association between CAHC use and adherence to conventional treatments in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). METHODS: A cohort of children with JIA (n = 182, mean age 10 yrs) who attended outpatient clinics were followed for one year. We evaluated the use of CAHC, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), global health, physical functioning, pain, and disease severity at 3-month intervals. We also evaluated perceived adherence to treatments. General estimating equations were performed to determine the association between use of CAHC and subsequent outcomes while controlling for possible confounders. RESULTS: CAHC was used by 36.4% of participants over the 12-month period. Use of CAHC was associated with subsequent lower global health and physical functioning despite higher adherence to prescribed medications as assessed by the rheumatologist (p < 0.05). Use of CAHC was not associated with subsequent improved HRQOL or decreased pain or disease severity. CONCLUSION: Children with JIA who use CAHC do not have improved outcomes, at least over the relatively short term. Nevertheless, they seem to be more adherent to conventional treatment according to the rheumatologist.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".