Physician perceptions and experience of current treatment in actinic keratosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Topical therapy is important in the treatment of actinic keratosis (AK), a major risk factor for, and early development stage of, squamous cell carcinoma. Despite this, research addressing the limitations and challenges associated with topical field therapy in actinic keratosis is lacking. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to highlight the challenges associated with maximizing compliance in patients receiving topical AK therapy and to investigate real-world experience with currently available topical therapies including perceptions of adherence and persistence. METHODS: A 45-min online survey was developed and completed by physicians in eight countries. All had previously prescribed topical AK therapy and ≥1 other treatment. Physicians' consensus was summarized as overall agreement/disagreement from ≥70% of respondents (≥60% for case-specific questions). RESULTS: More than 70% of the 427 respondents agreed that topical field therapy is essential and had concerns that lengthy treatments and local skin reactions caused non-adherence/persistence. More than 90% of physicians would preferentially prescribe the shortest duration treatment to such patients. CONCLUSIONS: The research clarifies the challenges associated with prescribing topical AK therapy and highlights that short treatment duration and rapid clearance of skin reactions are key considerations for physicians. This provides a basis for the generation of recommendations for improving the real-world efficacy of topical therapy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".