P02.95. Treating type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional audit of naturopathic standards of care using the Naturopathic Patient Database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cases of T2DM from the RSNC reported in the NPD were extracted based on an ICD-10 code assessment of E11 (non-insulin-dependant diabetes mellitus). One auditor reviewed 30 files and tabulated audit scores. The Research Ethics Board of CCNM provided ethical oversight of this project. The American Diabetes Association 2010 standards of medical care in diabetes were used as guidelines for the audit. Multiple categories in diagnosis, physical exam, labs, and management were graded on a 0-2 scale. The Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile (MYMOP) is used by the RSNC as a universal outcome measure of effectiveness of individualized patient-defined symptoms and was incorporated into the audit and reporting of results. The average audit score is 55.5/90. The most common interventions being used are diet and aerobic exercise, followed by supplements (omega-3 fatty acids) and botanicals. Preliminary data suggests that the standards of care for T2DM are not followed stringently, particularly with regards to complete physical exams, appropriate referrals, and goal-setting. Education and creation of a naturopathic standard of care may improve audit performance and patient outcomes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".