Patient Performed Reading of a Phototest - A Reliable Method?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In various situations, in clinical practice or for prevention purposes directed at skin cancer, a broadened use of phototesting to estimate individual skin UV-sensitivity may be warranted. The aim of the present study was to investigate, in a primary health care population, the reliability of patient performed reading of a UVB phototest, when compared to the reading of a trained physician. Thirty-two subjects, all patients recruited in a primary health care population, underwent a UVB phototest, applied on the forearm. Test reading was performed after 24 hours, by the subjects themselves, by counting the number of erythemal reactions (0-6) detectable, and immediately after this, an independent control reading performed by a doctor was also done. The results showed a 72% absolute agreement between the subjects' readings and the control readings, and with a weighted kappa-value of 0.78 (95 CI: 0.64 - 0.91), i.e. corresponding to "substantial agreement". In conclusion, patient performed self-reading of a UVB phototest appears to be a fairly reliable method for estimation of individual skin UV-sensitivity, when compared to the reading of a trained observer. The finding opens up for a broadened use of phototesting in clinical practice and for preventive initiatives aiming at identifying at-risk individuals and reducing sun exposure.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".