Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This monograph reviews recent studies, examining topical glucocorticoid use in children. Emphasis is placed on mechanism of action, relative potency, cutaneous absorption, adverse affects, steroid phobia, and treatment compliance. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent literature has shown that over 80% of patients prescribed topical glucocorticoids are fearful of side effects and fail to use them appropriately. This lack of compliance leads to decreased therapeutic benefits. Despite this 'steroid phobia', multiple studies indicate that proper use of glucocorticoids in children is well tolerated and effective. Recent studies have failed to show clinically significant hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal suppression and cutaneous atrophy in children. High-potency steroids have been shown to cause growth restriction when used during pregnancy. Steroid allergy occurs with a prevalence of 2.7% and should be considered in children who fail to respond as expected to topical glucocorticoids. SUMMARY: Topical glucocorticoids continue to be well tolerated, effective and cost-effective in the treatment of inflammatory cutaneous conditions in children.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".