Prevalence and Morphology of Hand Eczema in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with hand eczema frequently have a history of atopic dermatitis or atopy. No specific morphologic pattern of hand eczema helps distinguish atopic hand eczema from other etiologies. There are few studies of hand eczema prevalence and morphology in a well-defined population of patients with atopic dermatitis. METHODS: We evaluated 777 consecutive patients with atopic dermatitis (diagnosed by standard criteria) for hand involvement. An additional 100 patients had further evaluations, including evaluation of the historical and morphologic characteristics of their hand eczema. RESULTS: The prevalence of hand involvement in patients with active atopic dermatitis was 58.9% (458 of 777 patients). Nail dystrophy was present in 16% (124 of 777) of patients. There was a significant trend toward an increasing prevalence of hand involvement with increasing age. Hand eczema tended to involve primarily the dorsal hand surfaces and the volar wrist. CONCLUSIONS: The hands are frequently involved in patients with active atopic dermatitis and present unique physical, social, and therapeutic challenges for patients. During the evaluation of patients presenting with hand eczema, the involvement of dorsal hand surfaces and the volar wrist may suggest atopic dermatitis as a contributing etiologic factor.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".