Canadian Ophthalmologists’ Opinions Concerning Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Use in Glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Our goal is to investigate the opinion and practice pattern of Canadian ophthalmologists regarding the use of and recommendations for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for their glaucoma patients. METHODS: Institutional review board approval for this prospective, cross-sectional survey was obtained from the Research Ethics Board of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. The survey was sent to all ophthalmologists in Canada electronically through the e-mail lists of 4 ophthalmology associations. RESULTS: A total of 241 ophthalmologists representing all provinces in Canada responded to the questionnaire. Twenty-two percent felt that CAM does have a role in glaucoma therapy with specialists being more likely to believe there is a role (P<0.05). Of the total respondents, 26% ask their patients if they use CAM with those in practice for <20 years more likely to encourage use (P<0.05). Of the respondents, 9% recommend CAM and if an ophthalmologist was in practice for <20 years he/she was significantly more likely to recommend CAM (P<0.01). Respondents (62%) in general do not discourage CAM with younger ophthalmologists (younger than 50 y, P<0.02) and ophthalmologists in practice for <20 years (P<0.05) being less likely to discourage CAM use. Respondents (41%) believe that CAM rarely ever affects compliance with ophthalmologists from an urban practice (P<0.01) and academic practice (P<0.05) more likely to deny effect on compliance. Respondents believe that CAM sometimes (46%) results in patient morbidity with ophthalmologists being in practice for <20 years believing that morbidity is less likely (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: A substantial minority of respondents believe that CAM has a role in glaucoma therapy, recommend its use, and ask their patients if they use CAM. Younger doctors are more likely to encourage alternatives; those in practice for <20 years are more likely to ask about alternative medicine use, recommend its use, and believe that morbidity usually does not result from the use of alternative treatments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".