Use of Traditional Herbal Medicine by AIDS Patients in Kabarole District, Western Uganda
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this cross-sectional study was to assess the use of traditional herbal medicine by AIDS patients in Kabarole District, western Uganda. Using systematic sampling, 137 AIDS patients were selected from outpatient departments of 3 hospitals and interviewed via questionnaire. The questions related to such areas as type and frequency of herbal medicine intake, concomitant herb-pharmaceutical drug use (including herb-antiretroviral drug cotherapy), and the perceived effectiveness of herbal medicine. Overall, 63.5% of AIDS patients had used herbal medicine after HIV diagnosis. Same-day herbal medicine and pharmaceutical drugs use was reported by 32.8% of AIDS patients. Patterns of traditional herbal medicine use were quite similar between those on antiretroviral therapy and those who received supportive therapy only. The primary conclusion is that AIDS outpatients commonly use herbal medicine for the treatment of HIV/AIDS. Pharmacological interactions between antiretroviral drugs and traditional herbal medicines need to be further examined.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it