Concepts of homeopathy among general population in Karachi, Pakistan.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the characteristics of patients and their gender influences concerning the use of homeopathic medicine, visiting both homeopathic and conventional medicine (allopathic) clinics. METHODS: This cross sectional study was carried out on 200 patients who attended private and public homeopathic and allopathic clinics or hospitals in Karachi using a pre-tested self-administered questionnaire. Data for demographic variables of frequencies and associations between variables were analyzed on SPSS version 12.0. Significance level was p < 0.05. RESULTS: Out of the total, 64.5% respondents, more among females than males (p < 0.01) believed in homeopathy. Although slightly more than a quarter preferred homeopathic treatment than allopathic treatment, 67.5% participants had had homeopathic consultation and treatment in the past. Amongst participants who had opted for homeopathy in any of their illnesses, the majority had it for chronic conditions which included skin lesions and problems of rheumatology. CONCLUSION: In this modern era, where people have the choice to decide newer and advanced forms of medical treatment and scientific methods, a large proportion of people still rely on alternative forms of treatment like homeopathy. More awareness regarding use of homeopathic treatment is needed among general population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".