Development and Validation of a Comprehensive Acne Severity Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although more than 25 acne grading systems exist, only 2 are inclusive of truncal acne. There is neither a gold standard nor a consistently used standardized system. PURPOSE: Our purpose was to develop and validate an acne grading system incorporating severity at the face, chest, and back. METHODS: We developed a comprehensive acne severity scale (CASS) by modifying a preexisting facial acne scale, the Investigator Global Assessment, to include truncal acne. The validity and responsiveness of CASS grades were correlated with Leeds scores at baseline and after 6 months of standard acne treatment. RESULTS: Spearman correlations were significant between Leeds and CASS grades for the face (0.823), chest (0.854), and back (0.872), respectively (p < .001). After 6 months of therapy, changes in these scores were also significantly correlated (p < .001) at all three sites. CONCLUSION: Concurrent validity of CASS is demonstrated by a very strong correlation with Leeds grading. CASS is simpler to use than the Leeds system and more appropriate for translation of research trial results to clinical practice.
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 | 0.020 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".