MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7036628948

Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) use among cancer patients / Somiyaton Mohd Dahalan @ Damuri

2010· other· en· W7036628948 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUiTM Institutional Repositories (Universiti Teknologi MARA) · 2010
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytochemistry and Biological Activities
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlternative medicineMassageCancerLikert scalePain medicineModalitiesCancer treatmentMalay
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Traditional and Complementary Medicine (TCM) Unit was established in three hospitals; namely, Hospital Kepala Batas in Pulau Pinang, Hospital Putrajaya in the Federal Territory of Putrajaya and Hospital Sultan Ismail· in Johor, which was approved by the Malaysian Cabinet in 2006. The unit initially provided three modalities of treatment comprising of acupuncture, Malay traditional massage and herbal therapy as adjunct treatments for cancer. Despite significant advances in treatment and the incidence of cancer in adults continuing to rise worldwide, many cancers remain incurable. One of the most feared symptoms in cancer is pain. It will affect most patients at some stage during their illness: The objectives of the study are to assess patients' beliefs and reasons on the use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) with conventional medicine in patients with cancer, to assess the relationship between demographic factors and beliefs towards using CAM, to find the relationship between beliefs and pain and to assess patients' attitudes toward pain on CAM use in cancer. Patients (with cancer) from the (TCM) Unit Hospital Putrajaya, Hospital Kepala Batas and Hospital Sultan Ismail were identified for this study. A questionnaire on CAM usage, beliefs associated with CAM usage by Rakovitch et al., (2005) were adopted and modified to answer study objectives. Patients' beliefs on CAM usage were assessed using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). An adapted version of the Short-form McGill Questionnaire from Melzack 1987 by Bond and Simpson (2006) was used to assess pain in cancer among patients. Taking into account that the sample of the study was not normally distributed in terms of race, gender, age and site of sample taken, non-parametric statistics was used in this study to assess the relationship between demographic factors and belief towards using CAM. Correlation between beliefs about CAM usage and pain dimension was tested using the Pearson Correlation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUiTM Institutional Repositories (Universiti Teknologi MARA)Same topicPhytochemistry and Biological ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207