Treatment of facial erythema in patients with rosacea with topical brimonidine tartrate: correlation of patient satisfaction with standard clinical endpoints of improvement of facial erythema
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Once-daily brimonidine tartrate (BT) 0.5% gel was shown to provide significantly greater efficacy vs. vehicle for the treatment of facial erythema in patients with rosacea. OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate that patient satisfaction with overall appearance is correlated with reduction in facial erythema, as measured by clinician and patient assessments. METHODS: Data from two identical phase III, multicentre, randomized, controlled trials of moderate facial erythema of rosacea (study A: n = 260; study B: n = 293) with topical BT 0.5% compared to vehicle gel once-daily for 4 weeks were analysed. Correlations of Patient's Assessment of Appearance (PAA) with Clinician's Erythema Assessment (CEA) and Patient's Self-Assessment (PSA) of erythema were evaluated by calculation of gamma statistics. RESULTS: PAA correlated with CEA post-application on Days 1, 15 and 29 for the intent-to-treat population and provided a median gamma value of 0.57 (min = 0.28, max = 0.61). PAA and PSA was also highly correlated post-application on Days 1, 15 and 29; with a median gamma value of 0.87 (min = 0.66, max = 0.89). Subjects who achieved a clinically meaningful improvement in both CEA and PSA scales were more likely to report satisfaction with the overall appearance of their skin (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Both one- and two-grade improvements in facial erythema assessed by subjects (PSA) and clinicians (CEA) correlate well with PAA, a patient-centered representation of meaningful change.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".