The ACP Evidence-Based Guide to Complementary & Alternative Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical Writings: Book Notes1 September 2009The ACP Evidence-Based Guide to Complementary & Alternative MedicineStephen M. Sagar, MDStephen M. Sagar, MDFrom McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-5-200909010-00025 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Jacobs BP, Gundling K, eds. 452 pages. Philadelphia: American Coll of Physicians; 2009. $64.95. ISBN 9781934465042. Order at www.acponline.org.Field of medicine: Internal medicine, family practice, oncology, and psychiatry.Format: Softcover book.Audience: Clinicians, medical students, or advanced practice nurses interested in complementary and alternative medicine or integrative medicine who wish to refer to the hierarchy of evidence that supports or refutes specific interventions and their adverse effects.Purpose: To provide a critical, evidence-based reference to complementary and alternative medicine methodology, research clinical practice, and safety.Content: The book includes chapters on definitions and principles, the clinical encounter, allergic disorders, ... Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAuthors: Stephen M. Sagar, MDAffiliations: From McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics 1 September 2009Volume 151, Issue 5 Page: 368 Keywords Complementary and alternative medicine Drug interactions Drugs Evidence based medicine Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation Obesity Obstetrics and gynecology Quality improvement Safety Stable coronary artery disease ePublished: 1 September 2009 Issue Published: 1 September 2009 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2009 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.169 | 0.141 |
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".