Patterns of use of natural health products by Ontario seniors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A random dialing telephone survey of 1,071 60+ year-olds in 4 Ontario communities identified 553 (52%) users of natural health products. Mean age was 72 yrs (min-max:60-95); 76% were female. The most frequently reported natural health products were: echinacea (27%), glucosamine (26%), garlic (20%), ginkgo biloba (10%), St. John's wort (5%), ginseng (5%), flax seed oil (3%), evening primrose oil (2%), devil's claw (2%), saw palmetto (2%). Natural source vitamin use was reported by 24% of users, and 6% reporting using herbal teas. 51% of users used 2 or more herbal products and 8% used 5 or more products. 19% of herbal users also used a conventional prescription drug to manage the same health problem as the herbal product. The reported range of monthly expenditures for these products varied from a few cents (grew their own) to $288 (CAN). Thirty-five percent of users did not know the price of at least one of their natural products. Of the 75% of respondents willing to disclose their annual household income ($CAN), 20 had an income of $46,000. The widespread use and potential for significant expenditure of limited resources would suggest that more study is required into the efficacy, safety and value 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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".