MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331284076 · doi:10.3109/09546634.2014.952608

Open-label exploratory study of acitretin for the treatment of severe chronic hand dermatitis

2014· article· en· W2331284076 on OpenAlexaff
Jerry Tan, Catherine Maari, Simon Nigen, Chantal Bolduc, Robert Bissonnette

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dermatological Treatment · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsInnovaderm (Canada)Windsor Clinical Research
FundersActelion Pharmaceuticals
KeywordsAcitretinMedicinePsoriasisDermatologyPlaque psoriasisSeverity of illnessInternal medicinePsoriasis Area and Severity Index

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Acitretin is a retinoid approved for the treatment of psoriasis that has good efficacy for palmoplantar psoriasis. The safety and efficacy of acitretin in severe chronic hand dermatitis (CHD) is unknown. METHODS: A total of nine patients with severe CHD were enrolled and treated with acitretin 10 mg once daily which could be increased to 30 mg daily if well-tolerated. Patients were treated for up to 24 or 12 weeks if the physician global assessment (PGA) was clear or almost clear at that time. CHD severity was evaluated using a 5-grade PGA scale and the modified total lesion symptom score (mTLSS). RESULTS: The proportion of patients achieving PGA of clear or almost clear was 33.3% (95% CI: 9-69%) and the proportion achieving PGA of clear, almost clear or mild was 44% (95% CI: 15-77%). The mTLSS decreased by 45% (-6.3 ± 4.7; p = 0.02). Three patients did not complete the study: one due to an increase in facial dermatitis, one due to lack of efficacy and one who withdrew consent. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests that acitretin could improve severe CHD. Further studies are needed to better assess the efficacy and safety of acitretin in patients with severe CHD.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations23
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dermatological TreatmentSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207