Complementary and alternative medicine use by glioma patients in Switzerland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During the course of disease, most glioma patients learn that there is no cure for their tumor. It is therefore not uncommon for patients or caregivers to seek complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments. Patterns of CAM use vary across the globe, but little is known about the type of, and motivation for, CAM use in most countries. METHODS: Here we conducted a cross-sectional survey of CAM use in patients harboring gliomas of World Health Organization (WHO) grades II to IV at 3 specialized neuro-oncology centers in Switzerland. RESULTS: Of 208 patients who returned the survey, approximately half reported having used or using CAM. CAM use was associated with younger age. Patients suffering from WHO grade II gliomas were less likely to indicate CAM use. The leading motivation for CAM use was to contribute actively to the treatment of the disease. CAM use was commonly not counseled or supervised by a health care professional. Cost and issues of reimbursement were not an important factor in the decision against or for CAM use. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians caring for glioma patients should be aware of and explore CAM use to better understand patients' attitudes toward their disease, to provide counseling, and to identify potential interactions of CAM with standard treatments for gliomas.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".