Oncology Association of Naturopathic Physicians: Principles of Care Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient use of integrative oncology (the inclusion of nonconventional treatments alongside the conventional standard of care) continues to grow, with some studies showing its use in cancer patients to be as high as 91%. Naturopathic physicians are primary care providers who use integrative therapies to deliver patient-centred care. The Oncology Association of Naturopathic Physicians (oncanp) was formed in 2004 as a specialty association for naturopathic physicians providing integrative cancer care (nd oncs). Currently, the membership encompasses more than 400 naturopathic physicians and students, 115 of whom are board-certified Fellows of the American Board of Naturopathic Oncology. In 2016, oncanp established a committee comprising recognized experts in the field of naturopathic oncology to develop a Principles of Care (poc) guideline. The committee first undertook a review of existing standard-of-care and best-practice guidelines in the field of oncology and then adapted those concepts into a draft document. The draft document was then reviewed by naturopathic physicians, medical and radiation oncologists, naturopathic policy experts, and finally the oncanp membership at large. The poc document presented here provides clear guidelines for nd oncs on how best to deliver patient-centred care in the areas of assessment, treatment planning, care management, interprofessional collaboration, and survivorship care. This naturopathic oncology poc document can be a valuable resource for nd oncs and other oncology care providers to further an understanding of the naturopathic and integrative oncology care model and its potential for collaboration.
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 | 0.028 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.013 |
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".