MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1499262187 · doi:10.1111/ajd.12354

Consensus recommendations on the use of daylight photodynamic therapy with methyl aminolevulinate cream for actinic keratoses in <scp>A</scp>ustralia

2015· review· en· W1499262187 on OpenAlexafffund
Jo‐Ann See, Stephen Shumack, Dédée F. Murrell, Diana Rubel, Pablo Fernández‐Peñas, Robert M Salmon, D. Brock Hewitt, Peter Foley, Lynda Spelman

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Journal of Dermatology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsProbity Medical Research
FundersGaldermaLEO PharmaValeant Pharmaceuticals International
KeywordsDaylightMedicinePhotodynamic therapyActinic keratosesDermatologyScalpActinic keratosisBasal cellInternal medicineOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Australia has the highest prevalence of actinic keratoses (AK) worldwide. Because of the risk of transformation of AK to invasive squamous cell carcinomas, consensus guidelines recommend that AK are removed using appropriate therapies to prevent progression to invasive disease. Daylight photodynamic therapy (PDT) is emerging as an efficacious treatment for AK, particularly for patients who require treatment of large areas of chronic actinic damage that can be exposed easily to daylight. Daylight PDT with methyl aminolevulinate (MAL) cream is a simple treatment for AK, almost painless, well tolerated and convenient, requiring minimal time in the clinic. Randomised controlled studies from northern Europe and Australia support the use of daylight PDT as an effective therapy for grade I and II AK on the face and scalp. There is sufficient daylight to conduct daylight PDT in Australia at any time of the year and during most weather conditions. Hence, daylight PDT with MAL can be included as an effective and well-tolerated new treatment option for the treatment of AK in Australia. These consensus recommendations provide guidelines for Australian clinicians on the use of daylight PDT in the treatment of diagnosed AK.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations63
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian Journal of DermatologySame topicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207