MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050719255 · doi:10.3747/co.v15i0.273

Research and Regulatory Issues for Integrative Oncology

2008· article· en· W2050719255 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Stephen M. Sagar, Raimond Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityJuravinski Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAlternative medicineIntegrative medicineGovernment (linguistics)OncologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many oncology patients are empowering themselves to self-treat with herbs, nutritional supplements, and mind-body techniques. Other practitioners, such as acupuncturists, are becoming involved in the supportive care of cancer patients. Government research agencies are supporting studies that evaluate complementary therapies. This educational article provides an overview of the challenges in designing appropriate studies of complementary and alternative therapies, evaluating the results, and regulating implementation of useful therapies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.240
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.278
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.240
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2400.278
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.026
Scholarly communication0.0180.022
Open science0.0070.009
Research integrity0.0450.038
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.538
GPT teacher head0.602
Teacher spread0.064 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207