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 OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey Balon, Linlu Zhao, Dugald Seely, David Brulé

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHomeopathySame topicComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207