Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To increase awareness of the psychosocial effect of acne, atopic dermatitis, and psoriasis. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: A literature review was based on a MEDLINE search (1966 to 2000). Selected articles from the dermatologic and psychiatric literature, as well as other relevant medical journals, were reviewed and used as the basis for discussion of how skin disease affects patients' lives and of appropriate management. Studies in the medical literature provide mainly level III evidence predominantly based on descriptive studies and expert opinion. MAIN MESSAGE: Dermatologic problems can result in psychosocial effects that seriously affect patients' lives. More than a cosmetic nuisance, skin disease can produce anxiety, depression, and other psychological problems that affect patients' lives in ways comparable to arthritis or other disabling illnesses. An appreciation for the effects of sex, age, and location of lesions is important, as well as the bidirectional relationship between skin disease and psychological distress. This review focuses on the effects of three common skin diseases seen by family physicians: acne, atopic dermatitis, and psoriasis. CONCLUSION: How skin disease affects psychosocial well-being is underappreciated. Increased understanding of the psychiatric comorbidity associated with skin disease and a biopsychosocial approach to management will ultimately improve patients' lives.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".