MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Use of alternative medicines in diabetes mellitus

2001· article· en· W2059982425 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetic Medicine · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusOver-the-counterAspirinAlternative medicineMedical prescriptionTraditional medicineInternal medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Enormous advances have been made in medical care but more people are still using herbal or alternative remedies. In chronic conditions such as diabetes patients may turn to alternative remedies that have been purported to improve glycaemic control. This study surveyed diabetic and control subjects about their use of all prescribed medication, over-the-counter supplements, and alternative medications. METHODS: Subjects were prospectively contacted in person or by telephone. Five hundred and two diabetic subjects and 201 control subjects were asked to provide details about themselves, their diabetes (for the diabetic subjects) and their use of prescribed medication, over-the-counter supplements and alternative medications. Subjects were asked to rank their assessment of the effectiveness of each medication. Costs were calculated on a per month basis from average prices obtained from five alternative health stores and five chemist shops. RESULTS: Of the diabetic subjects, 78% were taking prescribed medication for their diabetes, 44% were taking over-the-counter supplements and 31% were taking alternative medications. Of the control subjects, 63% were taking prescribed medication, 51% were taking over-the-counter supplements, and 37% were taking alternative medications. Multivitamins, vitamin E, vitamin C, calcium and aspirin were the most commonly used over the counter supplements. Garlic, echinacea, herbal mixtures, glucosamine were the most commonly used alternative medications. Chromium was used only by diabetic subjects and then only rarely. Subjects rated the effectiveness of the alternative medications significantly lower than for prescribed medications but still thought them efficacious. Alternative medications purported to have some hypoglycaemic effect were little used by diabetic subjects. Diabetic subjects spent almost as much money on over-the-counter supplements and alternative medications together as they did on their diabetic medications. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of diabetic patients are taking alternative medications that they consider efficacious but this is no more than in the control group. The money spent on alternative and non-prescription supplements nearly equals that spent on prescription medications. In view of the money spent in this area the time is past due to evaluate these remedies and to establish what merit they have.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.261 · 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