Natural Health Product–Drug Interactions: Evolving Responsibilities to Take Complementary and Alternative Medicine Into Account
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural health products (NHPs) (known as dietary supplements in the United States) are a popular form of self-care, yet many patients do not disclose their use to clinicians. NHP-drug interactions are known to occur and can harm patients and affect the efficacy of conventional treatment. Using the example of an HIV-positive adolescent who had been responding well to antiretroviral therapy but then experienced a sudden unexplained deterioration in her condition, we review (1) clinicians' obligation to inquire about complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use when assessing, treating, and monitoring patients, (2) how clinicians' duty to warn about risks associated with treatment has evolved and expanded, and (3) patients' and parents' responsibility to disclose CAM use. It also addresses the responsibility of hospitals and health facilities to ensure that the reality of widespread CAM/NHP use is taken into account in patient care to effectively protect patients from harm.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".