The use of alternative medical therapies in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: As part of an ongoing study of health resource utilization and diminished productivity in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), the use of alternative medical therapies was assessed. METHODS: A cohort of 707 patients with SLE from 3 countries completed questionnaires on demographics, social support, health status (using the Short Form 36 health survey), satisfaction with health care, health resource utilization (conventional resources and alternative therapies), and time losses in labor market and non-labor market activities. Annual direct and indirect costs (1997 Canadian dollars) were calculated and compared for users and nonusers of alternative medical therapies. RESULTS: Among the 707 patients, 352 (49.8%) were found to use alternative therapies and at similar rates across Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Users were younger and better educated than nonusers, exhibited poorer levels of self-rated health status and satisfaction with medical care, and had minimal to no objective evidence of worse disease (according to the revised Systemic Lupus Activity Measure instrument). The mean of log direct medical costs for conventional resources was higher for users of select alternative therapies compared with nonusers. In a logistic regression, neither the number of alternative therapies used nor the individual therapy increased the probability of incurring indirect costs. CONCLUSION: The use of alternative medical therapies is common in patients with SLE. Users of many alternative medical therapies accrue greater conventional medical costs compared with nonusers. The use of alternative medical therapy may be a marker for care-seeking behavior associated with higher consumption of conventional medical resources in the absence of demonstrable additional morbidity and should be considered in future cost analyses of patients with SLE.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".