Impact of Cosmetic Camouflage on the Quality of Life of Children With Skin Disease and Their Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Cosmetic camouflage is known to improve quality of life in adults. Few data are available regarding cosmetic camouflage in children, and thus it is not often selected as a mode of treatment. We sought to determine whether cosmetic camouflage leads to improved quality of life of pediatric patients with visible dermatoses and their parent or primary caregiver. METHODS: Patients aged 5 to 17 years with visible skin disease and their parent were assessed with the Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) and the Family Dermatology Life Quality Index (FDLQI) before and after consultation regarding cosmetic camouflage. RESULTS: Twenty-two children with skin conditions were included in the study. The mean CDLQI decreased from 6.82 (SD = 1.28) to 3.05 (SD = 0.65; P = .0014), while the mean FDLQI decreased from 7.68 (SD = 1.15) to 4.68 (SD = 0.92; P = .0012). CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlighted improvement in quality of life in patients with skin disorders who were managed with cosmetic camouflage.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".