MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Daylight photodynamic therapy for actinic keratosis: an international consensus

2011· review· en· W2112239594 on OpenAlexaff
Stine Regin Wiegell, Hans Christian Wulf, Rolf‐Markus Szeimies, Nicole Basset‐Séguin, Robert Bissonnette, M. Gerritsen, Yolanda Gilaberte, Piergiacomo Calzavara‐Pinton, C.A. Morton, A. Sidoroff, Lasse R. Braathen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsInnovaderm (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDaylightActinic keratosisMedicinePhotodynamic therapyCosmesisDermatologyKeratosisActinic keratosesSunlightSurgeryInternal medicineOpticsBasal cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is an attractive therapy for non-melanoma skin cancers including actinic keratoses (AKs) because it allows treatment of large areas; it has a high response rate and results in an excellent cosmesis. However, conventional PDT for AKs is associated with inconveniently long clinic visits and discomfort during therapy. In this article, we critically review daylight-mediated PDT, which is a simpler and more tolerable treatment procedure for PDT. We review the effective light dose, efficacy and safety, the need for prior application of sunscreen, and potential clinical scope of daylight-PDT. Three randomized controlled studies have shown that daylight-mediated PDT is an effective treatment of thin AKs. Daylight-mediated PDT is nearly pain-free and more convenient for both the clinics and patients. Daylight-mediated PDT is especially suited for patients with large field-cancerized areas, which can easily be exposed to daylight. Further investigations are necessary to determine at which time of the year and in which weather conditions daylight-mediated PDT will be possible in different geographical locations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations217
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the European Academy of Dermatology and VenereologySame topicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207