The brief history of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine terminology and the development and creation of an operational definition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The definition of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) remains dynamic and complex despite a steady increase in the popularity/usage of CAIM therapies across the globe. A lack of consistency in how these terms are defined remains a challenge for researchers, clinicians, and national and international organizations (e.g., World Health Organization, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health) alike. In the present article, we provide a brief history of the use of these terminologies, and then outline the process we took to develop and create an operational definition of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine. Our operational definition is the first to be informed by a systematic search of four quality-assessed information resource types, ultimately yielding 604 unique CAIM therapies. We then developed a single search string for the most common bibliographic databases using the finalized operational definition list of CAIM therapies. These CAIM therapies were searched against the Therapeutic Research Center's "Natural Medicines" database for all 604 therapies, whereby each item's scientific name and/or synonym was included as a keyword or phrase in the search string. While the current definition is not without limitations and ongoing debates still surround the field, this work is arguably a steppingstone towards enabling increased collaboration and communication amongst healthcare clinicians, researchers, and the public. This operational definition provides a foundation for developing well-coordinated research efforts that will assist in the acceptance and understanding of this field, while also focusing on adopting knowledge translation techniques and efforts for further research advancement and use.
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 | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".