Depression profiles in skin disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Dermatological problems often present mood disorders, depression, anxiety disorders and psychological conditions relevant to psychosomatic conditions. Seborrheic dermatitis and psoriasis, both characterized by chronic inflammation of skin, have been linked to emotional states. The aim of our study was to compare the two emotional profiles of patients with seborrheic dermatitis and psoriasis, in order to evaluate, quantitatively and qualitatively, the emotional picture in the two groups of disease. Methods: The study group included 33 patients affected by seborrheic dermatitis (21 males and 12 females, age range 18 - 67 years, mean age 39.85 ± 15.45 years) and 36 other patients affected by psoriasis (22 males and 14 females, age range 18 - 67 years, mean age 41.11 ± 13.72 years). The protocol included clinical assessment of the skin disorder and psychological assessment of emotional profile using the test Profile of Mood States (POMS) and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale TAS-20. An exploratory factorial analysis was carried out for the POMS factor D (depression) to evaluate the composition of the items found in the two types of skin disorders. Results: The comparison between patients with psoriasis and patients with seborrheic dermatitis in relation to the TAS score and the different aspects of mood and showed a significant difference concerning factor D (depression) of the POMS. Conclusions: This study shows the correlation between depression and two skin disorders, seborrhoeic dermatitis and psoriasis. In both cases, the clinical picture falls under the definition of “depression due to a general medical condition”. However, qualitative differences make the psychologic frame of psoriatic patients close to that of “major depression”, while in patients affected by seborrheic dermatitis the psychologic frame is more similar to that of “minor depression” (DSM IV).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".