Asthma: A Review of Complementary and Alternative Therapies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Cecilia Bukutu, PhD* 2. Christopher Le* 3. Sunita Vohra, MD, FRCPC, MSc* 1. *Complementary and Alternative Research and Education (CARE) Program, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. On behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Complementary and Integrative Medicine Although effective medications for managing asthma exist within conventional Western medicine (eg, inhaled corticosteroids and bronchodilators), some parents turn to complementary and alternative medical (CAM) therapies to treat their children's asthma. (1) Some reasons cited for using CAM therapies include concern about the long-term effects of steroid use; frustration that asthma does not resolve with conventional therapies; dissatisfaction with physician-patient interactions; belief that CAM is natural and, therefore, safe; and desire to have autonomy in making health choices. (1)(2) This review of published scientific literature assesses the efficacy and safety of some common CAM therapies in preventing and treating pediatric asthma. Natural health products (NHPs), including vitamins, minerals, herbal remedies, and other dietary supplements such as fish oil and probiotics, are used widely to prevent and treat asthma. (3) Like conventional therapies, NHPs used to treat asthma can be categorized as having anti-inflammatory, bronchodilator, and other effects. Few of these NHPs have been evaluated in pediatric trials. ### Vitamin C Vitamin C is an important antioxidant found in abundance in the extracellular fluid lining of the lung. Low intake of vitamin C is associated with pulmonary dysfunction. (4) Several observational studies in children have reported a beneficial relationship between a high fruit intake and improved lung function. (5)(6) However, a 2004 Cochrane systematic review of eight randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) concluded that evidence was insufficient to recommend a specific role for vitamin C in treating asthma. (4) Of the eight included studies, three small studies (fewer than 41 participants each) concluded that vitamin C supplementation was beneficial; five studies, including the largest trial (n=210), showed little or no beneficial effect. Larger, long-term RCTs are needed to clarify the possible role of vitamin C in the treatment of asthma. Most researchers have used daily doses of 500 to 1,000 mg. …
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".