CANADIAN JOURNAL OF DIABETES CANADIAN JOURNAL OF DIABETES. 2002;26(4):356-362.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural health products (NHPs) have received attention for their role in human health and disease. Type 2 diabetes is a disease of interest due to its increasing incidence and the potential role of NHPs in its management. The objectives of this study were to determine the prevalence and predictors of NHP use, and to characterize beliefs and attitudes about NHPs in adults with type 2 diabetes. Adults with type 2 diabetes (N=200) completed a questionnaire exploring the prevalence of NHP use; attitudes and beliefs about NHPs; and general health, medical and demographic data. NHP users were significantly older and tended to have a lower body weight (p=0.06) than NHP non-users. There were no significant differences between NHP users and non-users in terms of factors related to diabetes management, includ-ing fasting plasma glucose and glycated hemoglobin. The prevalence of NHP use was 73%, with the 3 most common NHPs being multivitamins/minerals, calcium and vitamin C. The majority of NHP users (80.7%) had their NHPs recommended to them, most often by a physician (42.2%). The most common rationale for NHP use was bone health (21.4%), with diabetes ranked fourth (13.8%). The most common sources of NHP information were physicians (18.8%) and magazines/books (18.8%), and the majority of NHP users (66.7%) reported they did not need more infor-mation. The high prevalence of NHP use observed in the current study justifies the contribution value of these data to the management of adults with type 2 diabetes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.132 | 0.023 |
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".