Powerful proprietary Chinese medicine for eczema?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conflict of interest: none declared. The use of proprietary topical or oral medications for various skin and general conditions is popular among Chinese patients in Hong Kong.1, 2 Many parents may purchase topical preparations without knowing what they are, and apply liberally to their children’s skin. Despite the prevalence of ‘steroidophobia’, which may lead to the incorrect use of prescribed topical corticosteroids in children with dermatological disorders3 parents might unknowingly be using over‐the‐counter (OTC) potent corticosteroids in these products.4 We previously reported problems associated with usage of topical medication and misuse of topical steroid.5, 6 In this paper, we report a case of unwitting systemic steroid usage with a proprietary Chinese medicine (PCM). The father of a 9‐year‐old girl with eczema presented us with three capsules for analysis (Fig. 1). He had purchased the capsules from a TCM practitioner in Shanghai and had used them for 5 months. The father reported that the TCM practitioner had claimed that the capsules contained special herbs. He also reported that the girl’s eczema promptly improved with the medications but flared again if they were discontinued. Furthermore, he noted that his daughter had become fatter.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.100 | 0.008 |
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".