MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Complementary and alternative medicine and other health behaviors.

2013· article· en· W2243974396 on OpenAlexaffabout
Donna M. Graham, Osvaldo Espin‐Garcia, Catherine Brown, Oleksandr Halytskyy, Mary Mahler, Dan Pringle, Lawson Eng, Chongya Niu, Christine Lam, Rebecca Charow, Jodie Villeneuve, Ravi M. Shani, Kyoko Tiessen, Doris Howell, Jennifer M. Jones, Shabbir M.H. Alibhai, Wei Xu, Geoffrey Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLogistic regressionCancerOverweightBreast cancerOdds ratioInternal medicineSmoking cessationObesityLung cancerPhysical therapyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

23 Background: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use in patients with cancer has increased. A patient’s decision to seek CAM alongside conventional cancer treatment is complex. We evaluated whether patients who sought CAM were also more likely to engage in other healthy behaviours such as exercise, smoking cessation, alcohol reduction, and maintaining a healthy weight. Methods: As part of a larger survey of cancer survivors, 551 cancer patients across Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (Canada) were queried on clinico-demographic information, their use of CAM and other health-related behaviors (smoking, alcohol use, healthy weight, etc.). Multivariable logistic regression assessed each health behavior, adjusting for clinical factors associated with CAM use. Results: Females: 53%; median age: 54 years; Caucasian: 83%. Primary tumor sites: breast/gynecologic 22%; gastrointestinal/genitourinary 28%; hematologic 23%; lung/head and neck 12%. Following their cancer diagnosis, 43% used CAM. Being female (odds ratio=2.55, 95% CI [1.8-3.7], having higher education (2.08 [1.4-3.1]) or higher income (1.80 [1.2-2.7]), and having breast/gynaecological cancers (vs. all others; 2.82 [1.8-4.3]) were associated with greater CAM use. These factors served as adjustment variables for the analysis of behaviors. Behaviors associated with increased use of CAM included: use of CAM prior to diagnosis (10.6 [6.5-17.2]), participation in support groups (3.39 [2.1-5.6]), not being overweight or obese one year prior to diagnosis (1.82 [1.2-2.7]), and meeting Canadian physical activity guidelines either before diagnosis (1.80 [1.2-2.8]) or currently (1.70 [1.0-2.8]). No association was observed between CAM use and smoking status or cessation, alcohol intake or reduction, self-described diet habits prior to cancer diagnosis or dietary changes after diagnosis. Conclusions: Some behaviors such as baseline and current physical activity, participation in support groups, not being overweight, and prior use of CAM were each associated with greater CAM use. Smoking, alcohol and diet were not associated with CAM use. Improved understanding of the reasons for CAM use can an improve patient-physician communication, decision-making, and treatment planning.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0540.004

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 head0.372
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies→French-language works237,207→