MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107400944 · doi:10.1111/pde.12045

Therapeutic Patient Education in Children with Atopic Dermatitis: Position Paper on Objectives and Recommendations

2013· article· en· W2107400944 on OpenAlexaff
S. Barbarot, C. Bernier, Mette Deleuran, L. De Raeve, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, May El Hachem, Carlo Gelmetti, Uwe Gieler, Peter Lio, Danielle Marcoux, Marie‐Anne Morren, Antonio Torrelo, J.F. Stalder

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Dermatology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersU.S. Food and Drug Administration
KeywordsMedicineAtopic dermatitisPosition paperDermatologyPediatricsFamily medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Poor adherence is frequent in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), leading to therapeutic failure. Therapeutic patient education (TPE) helps patients with chronic disease to acquire or maintain the skills they need to manage their chronic disease. After a review of the literature, a group of multispecialty physicians, nurses, psychologists, and patients worked together during two international workshops to develop common recommendations for TPE in AD. These recommendations were structured as answers to nine frequently asked questions about TPE in AD: What is TPE and what are its underlying principles? Why use TPE in the management of AD? Who should benefit from TPE in AD? How can TPE be organized for AD? What is the assessment process for TPE in AD? What is the evidence of the benefit of TPE in AD? Who are the people involved in TPE? How should TPE be funded in dermatology? What are the limits of the TPE process?

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0100.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations76
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric DermatologySame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207