Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is relatively common worldwide; costs associated with the disease have been reported recently for various countries, but no estimates of costs in Canada are currently available. The objective of this study was to estimate the costs associated with AD in Canada, assessed from resource use determined for a Canadian setting. METHODS: Seventy-six patients in Ontario with AD were surveyed to determine information about severity of disease, healthcare practitioner visits, over-the-counter medication use, household expenses and absenteeism relating to their condition. Based on this information, costs were determined based on the Ontario billing schedule, estimated prescription use, reported out-of-pocket expenses and stated family income. Data about sleep disturbance and concern over topical corticosteroid use were also obtained. RESULTS: Patients reported an average of 3.6 publicly funded doctor visits per year for AD; 58% of these visits were to general practitioners and 28% to dermatologists. The annual per patient expenditure was estimated to be 282, 454 Canadian dollars and 1242 Canadian dollars for patients with mild, moderate and severe AD, respectively. The total cost of AD in Canada was estimated to be 1.4 billion Canadian dollars annually. More than half of the patients experienced sleep disturbances owing to their condition, and 71% reported having concerns about topical corticosteroid use. CONCLUSIONS: Although the cost per patient of AD in Canada is relatively low, owing to the prevalence of the disease, the total cost to society is large. Most of the cost is borne by patients and their employers, primarily owing to indirect costs associated with absenteeism.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".