Dietary Supplement Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use in Pediatric Autism: Physician Based Perception, Knowledge and Involvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a group of heterogeneous chronic neurodevelopmental disorders characterized by qualitative impairments in social interaction, communication, and repetitive stereotyped patterns of behavior, and is quoted as being the fastest growing developmental disorder in the United States affecting an estimated 1 in 45 children. In addition to conventional treatment options, some parents of children with autism seek out supplement based complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) to treat autistic symptoms. Purpose This study describes the use of CAM in children between the ages of 4 to 14 years with and without ASD. Data from this study aims to: (1) provide a more clear understanding of the prevalence and types of supplement therapies used; (2) increase awareness of the use of CAM therapies in children to provide better integrative care; (3) inform public health professionals of common and potentially harmful CAM therapies in ASD to guide public initiatives; and (4) assess patient‐physician communication and interactions surrounding CAM use. Methodology This population‐based, survey sample evaluated children with and without ASD (4 to 14 years) in regards to supplement use. Participants were recruited from educational and physical activity programs to complete a questionnaire. Primary caregivers provided information on current CAM use and their perceived physician knowledge of CAM administration. Data evaluates the proportion of children that use supplement therapies, the types of supplements used, reasons for use, perceived safety, and demographic factors associated with use (e.g. income, parental education, severity of disorder). In a second, follow‐up survey, physicians of children were asked to answer a questionnaire on CAM use in their patients‐‐. In particular, it examined the relationship between the parent and child's physician in terms of perceived parental and physician comfort in discussing supplements, parental disclosure of supplements, and physician knowledge of autism and supplements. Results Preliminary results indicate that 50% of children with ASD are taking supplements, compared to only 33% of children without ASD. The most common supplement used was a multivitamin (46%), the use of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), B vitamins, and dietary fiber use were also found. Health care professionals were the most common information source regarding supplements and the majority of parents reported disclosing all supplement use to their child's primary health provider. All parents, both in the autism and control group, indicated that they perceived supplements as being safe. In conclusion, the use of supplement therapies in children with ASD is common and highlights the need for further research with respect to treatment communication, knowledge, and education. Support or Funding Information Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".