[THE TIME HAS COME! COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE IN MEDICAL TRAINING IN ISRAEL].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has become increasingly popular in most Western countries. As a result, safety-related issues associated with these practices have become more apparent, including adverse effects and negative interactions with conventional medical therapies. The potential dangers associated with CAM are further exacerbated by the absence of high-quality clinical research on the subject; a lack of a basic understanding of the principles of CAM among physicians; and a reluctance of patients to disclose their use of CAM, including those modalities being used in parallel with conventional medical treatments. The increase in CAM use by their patients and the increased potential for harmful effects and interactions are central to the increasing interest among physicians and other healthcare professionals in learning more about CAM paradigms and practices of care. In light of this increasing interest in CAM, the majority of medical schools in the U.S. and Canada and a large number in Europe are providing their students with compulsory or elective courses on this subject. A similar process is taking place in Israel, with the Faculty of Medicine at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem having completed its first compulsory course in CAM at the Hadassah University Medical Center, Ein Karem. The increased use of CAM presents a number of challenges to the conventional medical profession. Medical schools can and should provide students with the knowledge and skills which will enable them to discuss CAM use with their patients, providing evidence-based guidance on the safe and effective use of these modalities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.160 | 0.037 |
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".