MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Local steroid therapy and bacterial skin flora in atopic dermatitis

2006· article· en· W2161955658 on OpenAlexaff
J.‐F. Stalder, Maxime Fleury, M. Sourisse, M Rostin, F. PHELINE, P Litoux

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Dermatology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtopic dermatitisStaphylococcus aureusMedicineClinical trialRandomized controlled trialColonizationDermatologySkin floraMicrococcaceaeCorticosteroidInternal medicineSurgeryBacteriaMicrobiologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A double-blind, randomized trial was conducted to determine the influence of topical steroid therapy on atopic skin flora. The bacteriological and clinical effects of desonide (Locapred), compared with those of its excipient, were studied in 40 children. Clinical scoring and bacteriological sampling were performed before the start of the trial and after 7 days of once-daily topical treatment. Before treatment, no differences in clinical score or Staphylococcus aureus colonization were noted between the two groups. After treatment, the clinical score improved (P < 0.001) in the desonide group, and S. aureus density decreased dramatically (P < 0.001). In the excipient group, no significant differences in clinical score or S. aureus density were noted. A comparison of the two groups demonstrated statistically significant differences with regard to clinical score (P < 0.001) and S. aureus density (P < 0.05). These results show the efficacy of topical corticosteroid treatment alone on S. aureus colonization in atopic skin, and confirm the critical role of inflammation in bacterial colonization.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations165
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of DermatologySame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207