MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2283713799 · doi:10.1177/1203475415602840

Clinical Features and Patient Outcomes of Hidradenitis Suppurativa

2015· article· en· W2283713799 on OpenAlexaffabout
Whan B. Kim, R. Gary Sibbald, Howard Hu, Morteza Bashash, Niloofar Anooshirvani, Patricia Coutts, Afsáneh Alavi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHidradenitis Suppurativa and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHidradenitis suppurativaReferralDiseaseCross-sectional studyDermatologyInternal medicineFamily medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite the high burden of disease associated with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), epidemiologic data are scarce. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to review demographic features and clinical findings in 80 HS patients from 2 referral centres in Ontario, Canada, from October 2013 to September 2014, and to assess for factors that are associated with more advanced disease. METHODS: Multicentre cross-sectional study. The data on demographic and clinical features were obtained by questionnaires and chart review. RESULTS: Of a total of 80 patients (67.5% females), percentages of patients in Hurley stages I, II, and III were 15.4%, 55.8%, and 28.9%, respectively. Most patients were not diagnosed for more than 1 year (70.1%). Patients with more severe disease were more likely to be females and to have a greater number of lesions and were less likely to be diagnosed initially by a dermatologist. CONCLUSIONS: This study documents the common demographic and clinical features of HS to optimize resource allocation and patient outcomes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations24
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and SurgerySame topicHidradenitis Suppurativa and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207