The use of natural health products (NHP) by Ontario seniors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A random dialing telephone survey in 4 Ontario communities obtained data on the use of natural health products (NHP) from 1,071 persons 60 years and older. 553 (52%) respondents were users of NHP. Prevalence of use was similar for females (53%) and males (48%). In this population modal users were of European descent, high school graduates and employed at least part-time. Half the users received recommendations about NHP from friends or relatives; another 22% learned about NHP through self-experimentation. Most users (81 %) decided by themselves whether they would buy an NHP rather than rely on input from another source (herbalist, physician, store owner/employee). 38% of NHP users had not informed their physician that they were using an NHP. When users had discussed NHP with their physician, less than 5% of physicians responded negatively. Some users felt natural health products were safer (15%) and less expensive (4%) than prescription drugs. 30% used NHP as a last resort for the treatment of a chronic disease. Nearly half (49%) of the users believed that if the government pays for prescription drugs, it should also pay for herbal remedies; 36% said the consumer should pay. In light of the extensive use of NHP by seniors, there is a need for clinical pharmacology studies of these products.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".