MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086054712 · doi:10.1159/000090655

Heredity: A Prognostic Factor for Acne

2006· article· en· W2086054712 on OpenAlex
F. Ballanger, P. Baudry, Jean‐Michel Nguyen, Amir Khammari, Brigitte Dréno

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcne and Rosacea Treatments and Effects
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcneIsotretinoinFamily historyHeredityMedicineDermatologyPopulationRisk factorInternal medicineBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The role of heredity in acne severity and therapeutic response remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: A prospective epidemiologic study was performed to compare clinical and evolutive features of acne and response to treatment in 151 patients with acne with (A+) or without (A-) family history of acne. METHODS: A+ and A- patients were compared on clinical and therapeutic criteria. A+ patients were then distributed into subgroups (M+, F+, M+F+) following the origin of family history (father: F, mother: M). RESULTS: The clinical profile was similar in the A+ and A- populations. Acne occurred earlier and more often before puberty in the A+ population, in which oral treatments and relapse after isotretinoin were more frequent. Retentional lesions (number and extent) were more important in the M+ and M+F+ populations. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the importance of heredity as a prognostic factor for acne. Family history of acne is associated with earlier occurrence of acne, increased number of retentional lesions and therapeutic difficulties.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.317
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.263 · 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