MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157419489 · doi:10.1542/pir.30-2-75

Complementary, Holistic, and Integrative Medicine: Fever

2009· review· en· W2157419489 on OpenAlexaffabout
Derek Wang, Cecilia Bukutu, Alison P Thompson, Sunita Vohra

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatrics in Review · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcupuncture Treatment Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHolistic healthIntegrative medicineMedicineIntensive care medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.184
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatrics in ReviewSame topicAcupuncture Treatment Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207