An observational cross-sectional survey of rosacea: clinical associations and progression between subtypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated differences between rosacea subtypes in epidemiological associations and clinical features. The natural history of rosacea is unknown and progression between subtypes has been implied but not formally evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To assess associations between the four rosacea subtypes [erythematotelangiectatic (ETR), papulopustular (PPR), phymatous (PHY) and ocular], including quantitative and qualitative details on primary and secondary features of rosacea. A secondary objective was to evaluate for the potential of progression between subtypes. METHODS: This cross-sectional study recruited subjects with rosacea from Northern Germany and comprised clinical evaluation by a dermatologist and a survey of demographics and onset of rosacea-associated signs and symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 135 subjects with rosacea were enrolled. PHY was more frequently associated with PPR than ETR (P < 0·001). Compared with ETR, PPR was significantly associated with facial burning/stinging (P = 0·001), phymas (P < 0·001) and oedema (P < 0·001); and during flushing episodes, was more frequently associated with burning (P = 0·018), skin tension (P = 0·005) and itching (P = 0·027). ETR was more frequently associated with dry facial skin (P < 0·001). Flushing was reported by 66% and the site most frequently involved was the cheeks (100%). Papulopustules were evanescent in 42% and the sites most frequently involved were the cheeks (80%) and nose (67%). Of those fulfilling criteria for at least two subtypes, 66% developed ETR before PPR; 92% developed ETR before PHY; 83% developed PPR before PHY; and the majority developed cutaneous rosacea-associated features before ocular signs/symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences exist between ETR and PPR in rosacea-associated features and in subtype associations. A small proportion of subjects with rosacea may progress between subtypes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".