MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Etiology of cicatricial alopecias: a basic science point of view

2008· review· en· W1993325641 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin J. McElwee

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatologic Therapy · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHair Growth and Disorders
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal HealthVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Alopecia Areata Foundation
KeywordsHair follicleMedicineAlopecia areataHair lossImmunologyPathologyStem cellDermatologyBiologyEndocrinologyCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a short summary of our current knowledge of cicatricial alopecia disease pathogenesis and the hypothetical disease mechanisms that may be involved in scarring alopecia development. Several forms of scarring alopecia likely involve targeted cytotoxic action against hair follicle cells mediated by a folliculocentric inflammation. However, the specific nature of the inflammatory interference in hair follicle growth is open to question. A popular hypothesis of lymphocyte-mediated scarring alopecia development involves autoimmune targeting of hair follicle-specific self-antigens, although there is no direct evidence in support of such a view. Alternative hypotheses focus on defects in sebaceous gland function, destruction of hair follicle stem cells, and interference in the communication between hair follicle mesenchyme and epithelium. Many questions arise from these hypotheses, and addressing them with a systematic research approach may enable significant advances in understanding cicatricial alopecia etiology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations39
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatologic TherapySame topicHair Growth and DisordersFrench-language works237,207