MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329618515 · doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000050

The Effectiveness of Grenz Ray Therapy for Chronic Dermatoses of the Hands and Feet

2014· article· en· W2329618515 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brenda Simpson, Shannon K. Foster, Cindi N. Chapman, Eric L. Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEffects of Radiation Exposure
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectConfidence intervalDermatologyRadiation therapySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Grenz ray therapy (GRT) has been used for inflammatory and neoplastic dermatologic diseases for over 100 years. Its use is declining, possibly because of the difficulties maintaining radiation certification and insurance coverage. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of GRT in chronic inflammatory dermatoses of the hands and feet. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients treated with GRT at the Oregon Health & Science University from 2006 to 2009. Candidates identified for the study were then mailed questionnaires to supplement data acquired from chart review. RESULTS: Most patients (73%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 65%-80%) experienced at least moderate improvement. This improvement persisted for at least 1 month in 66% of patients (95% CI, 57%-74%), with 18 patients (23%; 95% CI, 15%-33%) clear for over 1 year. Minimal adverse effects were reported, and most patients (63%; 95% CI, 52%-72%) stated that they would repeat GRT if available. CONCLUSIONS: Grenz ray therapy seems to be a safe and effective modality for chronic hand and foot dermatoses with some patients experiencing prolonged remissions. Grenz ray therapy, when available, should be considered before the use of systemic agents, which are often associated with higher costs and potential toxicities.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicEffects of Radiation ExposureFrench-language works237,207