Efficacy of a Day-Care Program in the Treatment of Psoriasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few data exist documenting the effectiveness of psoriasis day-care treatment programs (PDTPs) using standardized efficacy measurements. OBJECTIVES: We sought to analyze the efficacy of a PDTP using the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI). METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on 132 patients treated at our PDTP. Sufficient data existed to permit PASI analysis using a simplified method for a representative subgroup of 64 patients, who formed the study population. Patients received phototherapy and topical treatments over 2 weeks. The outcome measures included a baseline and day 11 PASI, a physician global assessment (PGA), and adverse events reported by the patients. RESULTS: Mean baseline PASI was 13.6 (N = 64), with a 59.6% reduction by day 11. A PASI reduction of > or = 50% was seen in 75% of patients, with 30% of patients achieving > or = 75% reduction of PASI. Day 11 PGA demonstrated a 69.9% improvement. CONCLUSION: With a reduction in PASI of 59.6% at 11 days, our PDTP, with phototherapy and topical agents, seems to be a rapid and effective therapy for psoriasis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".