Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use by Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Are Canadian Physicians Failing with Conventional Therapy, or Not?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hilsden et al conducted a postal survey of members of the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada (CCFC), gathering data on the use of both conventional therapy and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). The response rate was 76% (quite good for a mailed survey), although 9% of respondents stated that they did not actually have inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (their data were excluded from the analysis). The data regarding CAM use were difficult to follow, as there was a blending of past and current reported use of CAM, as well as of CAM use specifically for IBD as opposed to for non-IBD reasons. Current or past use of CAM for IBD was reported by 47% of respondents, and ongoing use for IBD specifically was reported by 24%. It appears that most of the CAM used by IBD patients was not for their IBD. An important finding was that approximately half of IBD patients use CAM either for their IBD or for other reasons. The main CAM used was acidophilus (19%), followed by massage (18%) and flax seed (13%).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".