Use of alternative medicine by patients undergoing cardiac surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Complementary and alternative medicine may influence cardiac surgical care by inducing coagulopathies and interacting with perioperative medications. We evaluated the significance of complementary and alternative medicine use in an acutely ill cardiac surgical population and assessed the willingness of patients to reveal these activities to their physicians and surgeons. METHODS: A total of 376 consecutive patients undergoing preoperative or postoperative cardiothoracic surgical evaluations at an urban academic medical center were approached to complete a survey regarding use and attitudes toward complementary and alternative medicine. All surveys were administered and collected between March and May 1998. RESULTS: Completion rate was 70% (n = 263). Respondents were predominantly male (72%), white (76%), and well educated (59%). The overall rate of complementary and alternative medicine use was 75%, but excluding prayer and vitamins, which are often not considered complementary and alternative medicine therapies, the rate was 44%. There was no correlation between the use of complementary and alternative medicine and the parameters of gender, age, race, or education level. Only 17% responded that they had discussed complementary and alternative medicine with their physicians, and 48% responded that they did not want to discuss the topic at all. CONCLUSIONS: Complementary and alternative medicine is used as frequently in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, as in the general population. Physicians and surgeons should be aware that patients have no inherent predisposition toward or against using complementary and alternative medicine, but that they are unlikely to volunteer their experience with it. The unwillingness of patients to discuss complementary and alternative medicine with physicians has serious implications for their safety, especially in acute care situations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".