Heredity: A Prognostic Factor for Acne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".