Clinical characteristics of generalized idiopathic pruritus in patients from a tertiary referral center in Singapore
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Generalized idiopathic pruritus is a rarely studied heterogeneous condition, where patients with non-inflamed, non-pathologic skin complain of widespread pruritus. METHODS: We had administered a detailed pruritus questionnaire, based on the short form of the McGill pain questionnaire, on 75 patients with this condition. RESULTS: All 75 patients recruited with generalized idiopathic pruritus completed the questionnaire. In 92% of the patients, pruritus appeared on a daily basis. Most patients experienced pruritus at night (56%) and in the evening (61%) and 69% had difficulty falling asleep. Pruritus mainly involved the legs (79%), arms (76%) and back (68%). Accompanying symptoms were heat sensation (17%) and pain (13%). 80% had been prescribed antihistamines, of whom 56% obtained short-term relief. The sensation of itch has been reported to be crawling (33%), tickling (20%), stinging (19%) and burning (19%). Patients also reported that the itch was unbearable (73%), bothersome (72%), annoying (67%) and worrisome (45%). The worst-state VAS scores were significantly higher in patients who reported agitation (P = 0.006), difficulty in concentration (P= 0.010) and anxiety (P= 0.033). CONCLUSION: This study describes the sensory and affective dimensions of generalized idiopathic pruritus, and this questionnaire has been found to be a useful tool for evaluating pruritus in this condition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".