Are Narrow-Band Ultraviolet B Home Units a Viable Option for Continuous or Maintenance Therapy of Photoresponsive Diseases?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Phototherapy is an effective treatment for several photoresponsive diseases. Many patients are unable to attend hospital-based treatment and prefer home phototherapy. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to survey patients who were prescribed home phototherapy to determine the viability of narrow-band ultraviolet B home units in the continuous or maintenance treatment of photoresponsive diseases. METHODS: A patient questionnaire was prepared focusing on different areas of interest: the reason for choosing home therapy, appropriate teaching, previous medical treatment, present exposure therapy, improvement of the condition, side effects, regular dermatologic follow-ups, and the effectiveness of this approach. Twenty-seven patients who attended the photodermatology clinics at the Sisters of Charity of Ottawa Health Service at the Elisabeth Bruyère Health Centre in Ottawa and the Ottawa Hospital Civic Campus were contacted, and they completed a questionnaire by telephone or electronic mail. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients completed the questionnaire. One refused to participate, and one was out of the country. The main reasons for choosing home phototherapy were time (40%), travel expenses (25%), difficulty with work schedule (17%), and recommendation by a physician (6%). Other reasons included loss of earnings, personal stress, knowledge that the disease recurs when phototherapy is discontinued, moving from the city, personal stress, and the convenience of being at home. Regarding the effectiveness of the home phototherapy, 24 patients (96%) viewed the home unit approach to be effective. All patients agreed that they would continue the treatment; they would repeat it, and they would recommend it. Few patients reported side effects, such as erythema (36%), blisters (1%), pruritus (8%), and dryness (1%). Fourteen patients (56%) reported not experiencing any side effects. CONCLUSION: Narrow-band ultraviolet B home phototherapy was found to be an effective form of maintenance therapy for photoresponsive diseases. It is safe and presents few side effects when patients receive appropriate guidelines, teaching, and follow-ups.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".