Complementary and alternative medicine in inflammatory bowel disease: keeping an open mind
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complementary and alternative medicine use is increasing in both the general population and in individuals with chronic illness. A significant proportion of adult and pediatric patients with inflammatory bowel disease use or have used complementary and alternative medicine as determined by multiple surveys conducted in North America, Europe and Australia. There was a heterogenous selection of complementary and alternative medicine therapies chosen by patients, with variations due to geography and age. However, in general, their use is sought due to frustration with conventional therapies and the perceived safety of complementary and alternative medicine therapies. One of the dilemmas that arises when assessing the topic of complementary and alternative medicine use is rapidly changing definitions of what is and what is not considered conventional medicine. With our increasing understanding of the intricacies of the gastrointestinal immune system and host-microflora interactions, determining a scientific basis behind many complementary and alternative medicine therapies in vitro or in vivo is leading to evaluation of these therapies in humans. This will require well-designed and rigourously conducted clinical trials with sufficient sample size.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".