The Skin Microbiome in Atopic Dermatitis and Its Relationship to Emollients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human-associated bacterial communities on the skin, skin microbiome, likely play a central role in development of immunity and protection from pathogens. In atopic patients, the skin bacterial diversity is smaller than in healthy subjects. OBJECTIVE: To review treatment strategies for atopic dermatitis in Canada, taking the skin microbiome concept into account. METHODS: An expert panel of 8 Canadian dermatologists explored the role of skin microbiome in clinical dermatology, specifically looking at atopic dermatitis. RESULTS: The panel reached consensus on the following: (1) In atopic patients, the skin microbiome of lesional atopic skin is different from nonlesional skin in adjacent areas. (2) Worsening atopic dermatitis and smaller bacterial diversity are strongly associated. (3) Application of emollients containing antioxidant and antibacterial components may increase microbiome diversity in atopic skin. CONCLUSION: The skin microbiome may be the next frontier in preventive health and may impact the approach to atopic dermatitis treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".