EFFICACY AND PATIENT PERCEPTION OF GRENZ RAY THERAPY IN THE TREATMENT OF DERMATOSES REFRACTORY TO OTHER MEDICAL THERAPY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Grenz ray therapy (GRT) has been used to treat dermatoses refractory to other therapy. Patient's assessments to GRT alone have not been previously reported. OBJECTIVE: (1) To report the patterns of use of GRT at our center over a 10-year period and evaluate the efficacy of GRT in treating recalcitrant skin conditions, (2) to evaluate patient perceptions about GRT, and (3) to evaluate whether patients felt this form of treatment was worthwhile. METHOD: Cross-sectional survey by mailed questionnaire to patients treated with GRT from 1990 to 2001. RESULTS: Of 351 patients treated with GRT from 1990 to 2001, 98 (28%) returned the questionnaire; 64% reported decreased severity or clearing of disease (p = .003), and 63% reported decreased or no discomfort (p = .006) 3 months following treatment. Overall, 54% said GRT was worthwhile, and 53% would choose it again; 40% reported mild side effects. Number of treatments (p = .2) or total dose (p = .25) were not significantly different among responders to GRT and nonresponders to GRT. In a subgroup of treated patients with a diagnosis of contact dermatitis (94% with hand dermatitis), 64% felt GRT was worthwhile and 77% indicated that they would choose this therapy again if needed. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients treated with GRT for recalcitrant dermatitis reported that this treatment was an effective therapy in decreasing the discomfort and severity of their skin condition. Overall, just more than half of treated patients believed GRT was a worthwhile therapy that they would use again.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".