Proceedings of the Strategy Meeting for the Development of an International Consortium for Chinese Medicine and Cancer
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
On November 3, 2014, in Bethesda, MD, the Office of Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine of the National Cancer Institute held a meeting to examine the potential utility and feasibility of establishing an international consortium for Chinese medicine and cancer. There is significant interest in the West in using components of Chinese medicine (CM) -such as botanicals and herbal medicines, acupuncture and acupressure, and qigong-in the field of oncology, as potential anticancer agents, for symptom management, and to improve quality of life. The proposal for a consortium on CM came from the Chinese Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, with the aims of improving scientific communications and collaborations and modernizing the studies of CM for cancer. The US National Cancer Institute's Office of Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine agreed to work with Chinese Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences to explore the feasibility of establishing an international consortium for Chinese medicine and cancer. At the meeting, participants from the United States, China, Canada, Australia, and Korea discussed issues in CM and cancer research, treatment, and management, including potential mechanisms of action, proof of efficacy, adverse effects, regulatory issues, and the need for improving the quality of randomized clinical trials of CM treatments and supportive care interventions. Presented in these proceedings are some of the main issues and opportunities discussed by workshop participants.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it