MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339075395 · doi:10.1007/s13555-016-0113-x

How People with Facial Acne Scars are Perceived in Society: an Online Survey

2016· article· en· W2339075395 on OpenAlex
Brigitte Dréno, Jerry Tan, Sewon Kang, María‐José Rueda, Vicente Torres Lozada, Vincenzo Bettoli, Alison Layton

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatology and Therapy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsWindsor Clinical ResearchWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScarsAcneMedicineDermatologyAcne scarsPopulationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Atrophic scarring occurs throughout the course of inflammatory acne and across the spectrum of severity. This study evaluates perceptions of the general population toward individuals with clear skin and acne scars. METHODS: An online survey administered in the USA, UK, Japan, Germany, France and Brazil to respondents 18 years and over presented three facial pictures of clear skin or digitally superimposed acne scars (but no active acne lesions) in a random fashion. At least one clear and one scar picture were presented to each participant. RESULTS: Among the 4618 responders, 33% themselves had facial acne scars. The skin was the first thing noticed about the face by 41% when viewing pictures with scars vs 8% viewing clear skin (p < 0.05). Those with scars were less likely to be considered attractive (17% vs 25%), confident (25% vs 33%), happy (23% vs 30%), healthy (21% vs 31%) and successful (17% vs 24%), and more likely to be perceived as insecure (15% vs 8%) and shy (23% vs 14%) compared with those with clear skin (all p < 0.05). The significance of the responses obtained varied according to the acne and scar status of the respondent. Skin care was cited as the habit most in need of improvement by 59% vs 13% of respondents viewing pictures with scars vs clear skin, respectively (p < 0.05). All respondent subgroups cited skin care irrespective of their own acne and scar status (all p < 0.05 vs pictures with clear skin). Those with scars were thought less likely to have a promising future (78% vs 84%) than those with clear skin (p < 0.05). The majority of respondents reported willingness to pay money to eradicate scars. CONCLUSION: The results of this multi-national survey demonstrate that facial acne scars are perceived negatively by society, confirming the importance of preventing acne scars with early treatment of inflammatory acne. FUNDING: Galderma International S.A.S France.

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.

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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.258 · 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