Development and evaluation of a Global Acne Severity Scale (GEA Scale) suitable for France and Europe
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Many acne grading methods exist; however, there is no agreed-upon standard. Our objective was to create and validate a reproducible acne assessment scale for rating the severity of juvenile facial acne suitable for use in France and Europe. METHODS: The scale we created described the different types of acne lesions in a manner similar to global assessment scales used in clinical trials. The scale was then validated by seven expert dermatologists in the field of acne [the Global Evaluation Acne (GEA) group] first on 34 photographic cases of Caucasian acne patients and second by clinical examination of 22 acne patients. RESULTS: There was good agreement in Investigators' assessments of acne both on photographs and patients (R = 0.8057; P < 0.0001, and R = 0.8437; P = 0.0015). CONCLUSION: The GEA Scale is a global scale validated both on photographs and acne patients which can be used either in clinical research or by the dermatologist in his office.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it