MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lichen sclerosus: a review and practical approach

2004· review· en· W2088047575 on OpenAlexaff
Deana Funaro

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatologic Therapy · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenital Health and Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLichen sclerosusMedicineDermatologyEtiologyMalignancyIncidence (geometry)DiseaseSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lichen sclerosus (LS) is a chronic dermatitis predominantly found in the anogenital area. It can be found in patients of any age group, sex, or race, but is most commonly present in Caucasian peri- or postmenopausal women. Although the etiology of LS remains uncertain, an autoimmune process is believed to underlie this condition. With many cases going unreported, its incidence is still unknown. There is no cure for LS, but treatment offers control of the condition. They are three reasons for treating LS: relief of symptoms and discomfort; prevention of any or further anatomical changes; and a theoretical prevention of malignant transformation. Although many treatments have been suggested to treat LS over the years, only potent or ultra-potent corticosteroids remain as the treatment of choice. After initial therapy, some patients might only use corticosteroids as needed, while others may require a twice-weekly maintenance therapy. There is no place for surgery in uncomplicated LS. Surgery should be limited exclusively to patients with malignancy and to correct scarring secondary to the disease. Lichen sclerosus is associated with a 4-6% risk of squamous cell carcinoma, making long-term follow-up essential in these patients.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations150
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatologic TherapySame topicGenital Health and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207