Comparative effectiveness of pediatric integrative medicine as an adjunct to usual care for pediatric inpatients of a North American tertiary care centre: A study protocol for a pragmatic cluster controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Some pediatric tertiary care centres in North America supplement conventional care with complementary therapies, together known as pediatric integrative medicine (PIM). Evidence to support the safety and efficacy of PIM is emerging, but the cost-effectiveness of an inpatient PIM service has yet to be assessed. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a pragmatic cluster controlled clinical trial. Usual care will be compared to usual care augmented with PIM in three pediatric divisions; oncology, general medicine, and cardiology at one large urban tertiary care Canadian Children's Hospital. The primary outcome of the feasibility study is enrolment; the primary outcome of the main study is cost-effectiveness. Other secondary outcomes include the prevalence and severity of key symptoms (i.e. pain, nausea/vomiting and anxiety), efficacy of PIM interventions, patient safety, and parent satisfaction. DISCUSSION: This trial will be the first to evaluate the comparative effectiveness, both clinical and cost, of a PIM inpatient service. The evidence from this study will be useful to families, clinicians and decision makers, and will describe the clinical and economic value of PIM services for pediatric patients admitted to hospital.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Non-randomized trial | high |
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 | 0.065 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.005 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".