Pediatric Integrative Medicine: Vision for the Future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pediatric integrative medicine (PIM) is of significant interest to patients, with 12% of the general pediatric population and up to 80% of children with chronic conditions using PIM approaches. The field of PIM has evolved over the past 25 years, approaching child health with a number of guiding principles: preventive, context-centered, relationship-based, personalized, participatory, and ecologically sustainable. This manuscript reviews important time points for the field of PIM and reports on a series of meetings of PIM leaders, aimed at assessing the state of the field and planning for its future. Efforts in the first decade of the 2000s led to increased visibility in academic and professional pediatric organizations and through international listservs, designed to link those interested in and practicing PIM, all of which continue to flourish. The PIM leadership summits in recent years resulted in specific goals to advance PIM further in the following key areas: research, clinical practice, professional education, patient and family education, and advocacy and partnerships. Additionally, goals were developed for greater expansion of PIM professional education, broader support for pediatric PIM research, and an expanded role for PIM approaches in the provision of pediatric care.
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 | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".