MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013353730 · doi:10.1016/j.sder.2012.07.003

Improving the Patient-Clinician and Parent-Clinician Partnership in Atopic Dermatitis Management

2012· review· en· W2013353730 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anthony J. Mancini, Amy S. Paller, Eric L. Simpson, Charles N. Ellis, Lawrence F. Eichenfield

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersValeant Pharmaceuticals InternationalUniversity of Louisville
KeywordsMedicineMisinformationAtopic dermatitisPatient educationGeneral partnershipIntensive care medicineCalcineurinMEDLINEAnxietyDermatologyFamily medicinePsychiatrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long-term adherence to carefully developed, individualized strategies is necessary for the optimum treatment outcomes in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD). However, the parents of children with AD frequently lack sufficient information about the disease and its treatment, hold incorrect and sometimes harmful beliefs about these issues, and too often do not follow through consistently with the treatment plan. The health care provider is the primary source of such education, so an effective provider relationship is fundamental to adherence. In addition to the provision of correct information and the correction of misinformation, clinicians must be aware of and must address barriers to adherence with AD therapy, especially parent anxiety about the safety of topical medications (corticosteroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminars in Cutaneous Medicine and SurgerySame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207