Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Verruca vulgaris is a common skin condition in general practice, which often resolves without treatment. For lesions needing treatment, they often persist despite repeated treatment and become recalcitrant warts. Hyfrecation is a form of electrosurgery which has been used in treating common and recalcitrant warts. OBJECTIVES: This article describes the history and mechanisms of hyfrecation and also reviews available evidence on the effectiveness of hyfrecation for recalcitrant nongenital warts. DISCUSSION: Hyfrecation provides controlled tissue destruction with carbonized desiccated wounds which are ideal for eradicating recalcitrant warts. A systematic literature search revealed very minimal, if any, good-quality clinical studies that compare the efficacy of hyfrecation against other treatments (i.e., liquid nitrogen) in treating recalcitrant nongenital warts. Other studies reported the benefits of hyfrecation for genital warts. The author illustrates with a case scenario, the benefits of hyfrecation in treating nongenital warts, and thereby, advocates its wider use in general practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".