INTERVENCIONES CON MEDICINA ALTERNATIVA Y COMPLEMENTARIA EN COMPARACIÓN A LOS PLACEBOS PARA LA DISMINUCIÓN DE SÍNTOMAS GASTROINTESTINALES EN ADULTOS AMBULATORIOS QUE ACUDEN A CENTROS DE SALUD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Systematize the evidence on interventions with alternative and complementary medicine compared to placebos for the reduction of gastrointestinal symptoms in outpatients who attend health centers.Methodology: Systematic review.Of 879 articles, it shows 10 articles.The database: Pub Med, Cochrane, Epistemonikos.The study design was 30% systematic review, 10% meta-analysis-systematic review, 10% randomized controlled trial, 20% cohort, 20% literature review, 10% correlational descriptive.According to the quality of the evidence at 50% high and according to the strength of strong recommendation at 50%; Depending on the country of origin, Italy corresponds to 20%, Germany 20%, Canada 20%, China 10%, United Kingdom 10%, Sweden 10% and Norway 10%.Results: 80% indicate that interventions with alternative and complementary medicine are effective with herbs, massages and meditation compared to placebos for the decrease of gastrointestinal symptoms in outpatients who go to health centers.20% indicate discrepancy due to the limited information in the investigations.Conclusion: It was concluded that 8 of 10 authors point out that interventions with herbs, massages and meditation compared to placebos reduced gastrointestinal symptoms in outpatients who go to health centers.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".