Cancer and Complementary Therapies: Current Trends in Survivors’ Interest and Use
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
BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors use complementary therapies (CTs) for a variety of reasons; however, with interest and use reportedly on the rise and a widening range of products and practices available, there is a need to establish trends in and drivers of interest. We aimed to determine (1) frequencies of use, level of interest, and barriers for 30 specific CTs and (2) whether physical symptoms, perceived stress (PS), or spiritual well-being were related to interest levels. METHOD: A total of 212 cancer outpatients were surveyed at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre in Calgary, Canada. RESULTS: Overall, up to 75% of survivors already used some form of CTs since their diagnosis. The most highly used were the following: vitamins B12 and D, multivitamins, calcium, and breathing and relaxation exercises. Those who had not used CTs indicated highest interest in massage, vitamin B12, breathing and relaxation, mindfulness-based stress reduction, and antioxidants. The most frequently reported barriers for all CTs were not knowing enough about what a therapy was and not having enough evidence on whether it worked. High PS predicted higher interest for all CTs, but spirituality was not significantly related to any. Physical symptoms, anxiety, and depression were significant predictors of interest for some CTs. CONCLUSION: These findings provide a blueprint for future clinical efficacy trials and highlight the need for clinical practice guidelines.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it