Pediatric Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Legal, Ethical, and Clinical Issues in Decision-Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article we introduce a series of 8 case scenarios and commentaries and explore the complex legal, ethical, and clinical concerns that arise when pediatric patients and their parents or health care providers use or are interested in using complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). People around the world rely on CAM, so similar issues face clinicians in many countries. In law, few cases have dealt with CAM use. The few that have apply the same general legal principles used in cases that involved conventional care while taking into account considerations unique to CAM. In ethics, as with conventional care, the issues surrounding pediatric CAM use usually involve questions about who the appropriate decision-makers are, on what ethical principles should clinical decision-making rely, and what obligations arise on the part of physicians and other health care providers. Clinical decision-making is made more complex by the relatively limited research on the efficacy and safety of CAM compared with conventional medicine, especially in children, which requires clinicians to make decisions under conditions of uncertainty. The clinical scenarios presented focus on patients who represent a range of ages, clinical conditions, and settings. They act as anchors to explore particular CAM policy issues and illustrate the application of and shortcomings in existing guidance and intervention principles. Although the focus on a pediatric population adds another layer of complexity to the analysis, many of the concepts, issues, principles, and recommendations also apply to adults.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".