Psoriasis: consensus on topical therapies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A consensus conference was convened to evaluate the topical treatment of psoriasis. PARTICIPANTS: Members of the International Psoriasis Council (IPC) with broad clinical experience in the treatment of psoriasis and a specialist in meta- and pharmacoeconomic analyses were invited to participate on the consensus panel. Those accepting the invitation convened in Saariselkä, Finland. EVIDENCE: An advisory group on topical treatments was nominated by the organizing panel members. All participants reported at the consensus conference on evidence based data with respect to disease severity assessment, the available data on efficacy and safety and on a comparative efficacy/safety analysis. CONSENSUS PROCESS: At the consensus conference, the presentations were discussed and conclusions, which were reached by the group, were recorded. Active participants of the group wrote assigned sections of this consensus document with a majority of participants agreed on the conclusions.
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 | 0.058 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.009 |
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".