MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055755774 · doi:10.2310/7750.2014.13218

Retrospective Review of Folliculitis Decalvans in 23 Patients with Course and Treatment Analysis of Long-standing Cases

2015· article· en· W2055755774 on OpenAlexaff
M. J. Kristine Bunagan, Nusrat Banka, Jerry Shapiro

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHair Growth and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFolliculitisDermatologySurgeryRetrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To date, there is no standard treatment of folliculitis decalvans (FD), a rare type of cicatricial alopecia. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: The records of 23 patients with FD (1998-2012) were retrospectively analyzed, with added data review on the course and treatment of long-standing cases. RESULTS: Initial management consisted mostly of intralesional triamcinolone acetonide, clobetasol lotion, and either cephalexin, minocycline, doxycycline, or tetracycline. Alternatives consisted of rifampicin, clindamycin, ciprofloxacin, and isotretinoin. Remission was achieved in weeks to months in more than half of the cases, with low occurrence of relapse. The poor responders had a protracted course of temporary improvement and multiple relapses. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients showed improvement and subsequent remission with oral antibiotics. In some patients, it took years of slow taper before the antibiotic could be discontinued. Only a few patients had recalcitrant disease, with minimal response to their initial and alternative medications.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.296
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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations48
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and SurgerySame topicHair Growth and DisordersFrench-language works237,207