Motivations and Experiences of Canadians Seeking Treatment for Lyme Disease Outside of the Conventional Canadian Health-Care System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the experiences of Canadians who seek diagnosis and treatment for Lyme disease outside of the conventional Canadian health-care system. METHODS: Forty-five individuals who had sought treatment for Lyme disease outside of the conventional Canadian health-care system were recruited from Lyme support and advocacy groups across Canada to answer open-ended questions about their experiences. RESULTS: Respondents sought treatment outside of the conventional medical system due to extensive diagnostic procedures and treatments that did not resolve symptoms. Escalating health concerns, lack of effective treatment, and stigma produced a sense of abandonment and desperation. Respondents accessed alternative forms of care based on the recommendations of peers, yet considerable financial and emotional stress was experienced. CONCLUSIONS: Many individuals with Lyme or Lyme-like diseases are deeply dissatisfied with the care received within the conventional Canadian health-care system and therefore felt both pushed and pulled to seek treatments either from international physicians using different treatment protocols or from alternative medicine providers in Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".