MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970354288 · doi:10.2196/12536

Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Patients With Breast Cancer: Exploratory Study of Social Network Forum Data

2019· article· en· W2970354288 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Béatrice Lognos, François Carbonnel, Isabelle Boulze-Launay, Sandra Bringay, Estelle Guerdoux, Caroline Mollévi, Pierre Sénesse, Grégory Ninot

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Cancer · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut National Du CancerDirection Générale de l’offre de SoinsInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale
KeywordsPsychological interventionBreast cancerSocial mediaMedicineAlternative medicineHealth careFamily medicineIntegrative medicineQuality of life (healthcare)Exploratory researchMEDLINECancerNursingInternal medicinePathologyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients and health care professionals are becoming increasingly preoccupied in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that can also be called nonpharmacological interventions (NPIs). In just a few years, this supportive care has gone from solutions aimed at improving the quality of life to solutions intended to reduce symptoms, supplement oncological treatments, and prevent recurrences. Digital social networks are a major vector for disseminating these practices that are not always disclosed to doctors by patients. An exploration of the content of exchanges on social networks by patients suffering from breast cancer can help to better identify the extent and diversity of these practices. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the interest of patients with breast cancer in CAM from posts published in health forums and French-language social media groups. METHODS: The retrospective study was based on a French database of 2 forums and 4 Facebook groups between June 3, 2006, and November 17, 2015. The extracted, anonymized, and compiled data (264,249 posts) were analyzed according to the occurrences associated with the NPI categories and NPI subcategories, their synonyms, and their related terms. RESULTS: The results showed that patients with breast cancer use mainly physical (37.6%) and nutritional (31.3%) interventions. Herbal medicine is a subcategory that was cited frequently. However, the patients did not mention digital interventions. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study of the main French forums and discussion groups indicates a significant interest in CAM during and after treatments for breast cancer, with primarily physical and nutritional interventions complementing approved treatments. This study highlights the importance of accurate information (vs fake medicine), prescription and monitoring of these interventions, and the mediating role that health professionals must play in this regard.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations27
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR CancerSame topicComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207