Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Psychotic Disorders
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), including alternative therapies (ALT) and natural health products (NHP) such as vitamin and herbal supplements, is increasingly accepted in both the general population as well as in patients with mood and anxiety disorders. The level of acceptance and use of CAM, however, is unknown among patients being treated for psychotic disorders. Psychotic patients were surveyed about their use of and attitudes toward CAM. Questions included basic demographic and socio-economic items as well as the lifetime and 12-month use of CAM. Data were collected from June to October 2005. A sample of 172 participants representing 8.4% of the total eligible population of the outpatient clinics within the Schizophrenia Program at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto Canada completed the survey. Considering all forms of CAM, the lifetime and 12-month prevalence rate were 88% and 68%, respectively. The use and perceived safety of CAM by this population is similar to that reported by the general population. Clinical and public health implications of these findings are discussed.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it