MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134155504 · doi:10.2310/7750.2014.14072

Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of Topical Imiquimod 5% for Plaque-Type Morphea: A Multicenter, Prospective, Vehicle-Controlled Trial

2015· article· en· W2134155504 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marlene Dytoc, Heidi Wat, Melody Cheung-Lee, Douglas Sawyer, Thomas Ackerman, Loretta Fiorillo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImiquimodMorpheaErythemaDermatologyAdverse effectProspective cohort studyRandomized controlled trialMulticenter studyClinical trialSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is currently a lack of evidence-based therapies that are safe and effective for plaque-type morphea. We aimed to evaluate the therapeutic potential and safety profile of imiquimod 5% cream in plaque-type morphea. METHODS: We enrolled 25 adult patients from two Canadian centers with histologically confirmed plaque-type morphea. Imiquimod 5% was applied to a representative plaque, and vehicle was applied to a control plaque for 9 months. Treatment efficacy was assessed with the Dyspigmentation, Induration, Erythema, and Telangiectasias (DIET) score, histology, and ultrasound evaluation. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-two patients completed the entire length of the study. Imiquimod 5% was superior to vehicle in reducing DIET scores at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months (p < .05). Induration demonstrated the greatest response. Histologic evaluation showed significant improvement or resolution of disease. However, no ultrasonographic differences were found in dermal and hypodermal thicknesses between the treatment and vehicle groups (p > .05). Adverse effects were minimal and well tolerated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations34
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and SurgerySame topicSystemic Sclerosis and Related DiseasesFrench-language works237,207