MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325407253 · doi:10.2310/7750.2006.00027

Sunscreens: Past, Present, and Future

2006· article· en· W2325407253 on OpenAlexaff
Nathalie Provost, Ian Landells, Stuart Maddin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSkin Protection and Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalVancouver General HospitalMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotoagingSun protection factorPhotoprotectionMedicineSkin cancerDermatologySunscreening AgentsUltraviolet radiationSun protectionPopulationSun exposureToxicologyCancerEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sunscreens form an important modality for cutaneous photoprotection. Sunscreen formulations incorporate many features that provide protection from ultraviolet (UV)-induced carcinogenesis, immunosuppression, and accelerated photoaging. Since the 1920s, when the link between skin cancer and UV radiation was first observed, sunscreen use has become part of our daily routine. Chemical and physical modifications are continuously made to formulations so that they may be more appealing to the general population, especially to those with fair skin. The demand for a formula that is effective in its UV protection while at the same time is adoptable in its application and exposure characteristics is an important consideration in the development of sunscreens. Because of continued development, technological advances, and substantive gains in knowledge on UV-induced photodamage, at present, we are able to produce effective formulations, and although these formulations do not provide total spectrum protection, they are considerably better than sunscreens of the past.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and SurgerySame topicSkin Protection and AgingFrench-language works237,207