MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800054059 · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1646775

An N-of-1 Feasibility Study of Homeopathic Treatment for Fatigue in Patients Receiving Chemotherapy

2018· article· en· W2800054059 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHomeopathy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOttawa Regional Cancer Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomeopathyChemotherapyHomeopathic medicineMedicineTraditional medicineInternal medicineDermatologyPharmacologyAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related fatigue has been described as a subjective feeling of physical, emotional, and/or cognitive tiredness. Homeopathy has been widely used to treat side effects of chemotherapy. The n-of-1 design is a single-patient trial method to study a clinical condition that is either short lived and reversible or is chronic and stable. The n-of-1 design requires a washout/reset period. The feasibility of performing an n-of-1 study in homeopathy has not previously been tested. METHODS: A feasibility n-of-1 trial of individualized homeopathic treatment for fatigue in a single adult undergoing chemotherapy administered periodically was performed. For each matched pair of treatments, the participant was randomly allocated either placebo or verum for the period between treatments. For the subsequent treatment period, the opposite allocation was given. Participant and practitioner were blinded to the allocation. Ongoing conventional treatments were permitted. The ability to recruit and retain was monitored and changes in fatigue and quality of life were measured using two validated outcome measures. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients were assessed between February 2014 and February 2015. Four patients were eligible for the study and one consented to participate. The participant enrolled in the study for six cycles of chemotherapy and completed all treatment and outcome measures. There was no improvement under homeopathic treatment compared to placebo. There were multiple confounding events such as conventional medication changes and an adverse event unrelated to therapy. CONCLUSION: Adequate recruitment was not feasible in this setting. The n-of-1 study design is feasible in this population from the perspective of the ability to complete the trial. No conclusion on the efficacy of homeopathy for this individual can be made. It is unclear as to whether multiple treatments of chemotherapy would be an appropriate clinical situation in which to apply the n-of-1 trial methodology. Future studies should pilot adaptations to this study design.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it