Complementary and alternative medications in the management of inflammatory bowel disease
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of complementary and alternative medications (CAM), products, and therapies not considered to be part of conventional medicine is common among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Patients often turn to these therapies as they are considered natural and safe, with significant benefit reported beyond disease control. There is emerging evidence that some of these therapies may have anti-inflammatory activity; however, robust evidence for their efficacy in modulating disease activity is currently lacking. Patients often avoid discussing the use of CAM with their physicians, which may lead to drug interactions and/or reduced adherence with conventional therapy. It is important for physicians to be aware of the commonly used CAM and current evidence behind these therapies in order to better counsel their patients about their use in the management of IBD. This narrative review provides an overview of the evidence of the more commonly used CAM in patients with IBD.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it