An Epidemiological Study of Hyperhidrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hyperhidrosis affects approximately 3% of the population. The nature of those patients presenting for treatment has not been well studied, however. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to perform a descriptive, multicenter study of patterns of patients referred for treatment of focal hyperhidrosis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A convenience sampling of consecutive patients referred for consideration of BTX-A therapy was surveyed. RESULTS: A total of 508 patient records (266 patients from Canada; 242 from the United States) were reviewed; 62.8% of those patients were female. The most common presentation was axillary hyperhidrosis in 73.0% of patients. Most of the patients were moderately to severely affected by their hyperhidrosis, with Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Scale scores of 3 or 4. There were trends found of facial and scalp hyperhidrosis affecting more men than women and being triggered by food much more frequently than in other sites of hyperhidrosis. CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated novel findings, especially in the differing presentations of hyperhidrosis between men and women.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".