MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004633518 · doi:10.1111/ddg.12510_1

Guidelines for diagnosis, prevention and treatment of hand eczema

2015· review· en· W2004633518 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas L. Diepgen, Klaus E. Andersen, O. Chosidow, P.J. Coenraads, Peter Elsner, John English, Ana M. Giménez‐Arnau, Rosemary Nixon, Denis Sasseville, Tove Agner

Bibliographic record

VenueJDDG Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHand eczemaDermatologyMedicineAllergyImmunologyContact dermatitis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The guidelines aim to provide advice on the management of hand eczema (HE), using an evidence- and consensus-based approach. The guidelines consider a systematic Cochrane review on interventions for HE, which is based on a systematic search of the published literature (including hand-searching). In addition to the evidence- and consensus-based recommendation on the treatment of HE, the guidelines cover mainly consensus-based diagnostic aspects and preventive measures (primary and secondary prevention). Treatment recommendations include non-pharmacological interventions, topical, physical and systemic treatments. Topical corticosteroids are recommended as first line treatment in the management of HE, however continuous long-term treatment beyond six weeks only when necessary and under careful me-dical supervision. Alitretinoin is recommended as a second line treatment (relative to topical corticosteroids) for patients with severe chronic HE. Randomized control trials (RCT) are missing for other used systemic treatments and comparison of systemic drugs in “head-to-head” RCTs are needed.The guidelines development group is a working group of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD) and has carefully tried to reconcile opposite views, define current optimal practice and provide specific recommendations, and meetings have been chaired by a professional moderator of the AWMF (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wis-senschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften; Association of the Scientific Medi-cal Societies in Germany).No financial support was given by any medical company. The guidelines are expected to be valid until December 2017 at the latest.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.011

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 head0.232
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations191
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJDDG Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen GesellschaftSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207