Complementary, Holistic, and Integrative Medicine: Therapies for Learning Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Elaine Z. Galicia-Connolly, MD* 2. Larissa Shamseer, MSc† 3. Sunita Vohra, MD† 1. *Former Clinical Fellow, University of Alberta, Stollery Children's Hospital CARE Program, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 2. †Complementary and Alternative Medicine Research and Education (CARE) Program, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Alberta on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Complementary and Integrative Medicine. Between 5% and 10% of schoolchildren have learning disabilities (LD), and up to 80% of such children have some form of dyslexia. (1) The diagnosis is based on significantly lower academic achievement than the intelligence quotient (IQ) would suggest. (2) Although disorders of learning and attention frequently occur together, this review specifically examines the effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions for children who have LD. The studies might include children who have comorbid conditions such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Existing interventions for LD focus on remedial teaching in the early years and offering compensatory mechanisms and lifestyle adjustments at later ages. The most robust predictive factors correlating with the success of LD interventions are attention and behavior, general verbal ability, prior level of component reading skills, and total IQ. (1) In a survey of 148 schoolchildren who had dyslexia, Bull found that 55.4% had used CAM for dyslexia, most commonly nutritional supplements or special diets, homeopathy, and osteopathy or chiropractic manipulation. (3) We conducted a search for articles related to learning disabilities and CAM therapies on MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, PsycInfo, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane's Central Register of Controlled Trials. Search terms were: (learning disorders OR learning disabilities) AND (complementary therapies), with terms varying by database and no limits on language or date. Studies were included if they examined a strictly pediatric population (0 to 18 years) of individuals who had LD and who experienced CAM as the intervention. Eleven articles were relevant …
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".