Complementary, Holistic, and Integrative Medicine: Fever
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Derek Wang* 2. Cecilia Bukutu, PhD* 3. Alison Thompson, BN, MN* 4. 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 Fever, commonly defined as a temperature of 99.5°F (37.5°C) or greater (axillary) or 100.4°F (38.0°C) or greater (core), is a common pediatric sign that has many causes (eg, bacterial or viral infection). Some of the causes are self-limiting and do not require treatment; others are serious underlying conditions requiring treatment. In children (particularly infants), seeking medical attention for the evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of the underlying cause of fever is standard care. (1) Some families seek to alleviate fever and its associated symptoms (eg, discomfort, irritability, crying) through easily accessible, adjunctive self-care techniques and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies. This review discusses common CAM therapies that have been used to treat fever in children and is limited to the following modalities, for which published scientific literature is available: physical methods, natural health products (NHPs), and traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). Physical methods such as tepid sponging, bathing, fanning, and cooling blankets often are used to treat fever. (2)(3) Although physical methods often are inexpensive and readily available, the efficacy of many of these methods has not been established through rigorous research. (4) A 2006 systematic review of seven quasi-randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) that included children (n=467) ages 1 month to 15 years who had fever of a “presumed infectious origin” compared physical methods (eg, tepid sponging) with or without a drug treatment (antipyretic) to a drug treatment, placebo, or no treatment. (4) Of the seven studies, three small trials had positive findings and demonstrated that tepid sponging helped to reduce fever in children. However, these findings were observed in children who had already taken acetaminophen, so it is unclear whether the tepid sponging was responsible for the observed reduction in fever. The trials considered in this systematic review had very small numbers and suffered from various methodologic …
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".