Recent Advances in Complementary and Alternative Therapies for Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic relapsing-remitting inflammatory condition of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, primarily comprised of 2 major types: Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). The pathogenesis of IBD is not fully elucidated but is thought to be multifactorial involving genetic, environmental, and immunological contributors. The incidence of IBD has been rising worldwide, particularly in developed nations. Canada, in particular, has one of the highest prevalence rates of IBD globally, with recent data indicating that over 320,000 Canadians are living with IBD, making it a significant public health concern. The chronic nature of IBD, along with the severity of its symptoms, and the adverse effects occasionally attributed to management (e.g. immunosuppression, corticosteroids, surgical complications) can significantly reduce the quality of life for those affected. As such, many patients with IBD use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) due to safety concerns of conventional therapy and a sense of greater control over their disease. CAM refers to a broad range of healthcare practices, such as herbal medicine, acupuncture, homeopathy, fecal microbiota transplants, and probiotics, which are not typically considered part of conventional western medicine. The use of CAM among patients with IBD is high, with current or past use of CAM ranging from 21-60% of IBD patients. Given the propensity of patients with IBD to seek CAM and the unfamiliarity that many medical practitioners have with the evidence of benefit/harm from these practices, this review seeks to summarize recent advances in clinical research on CAM use for 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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".