How People with Facial Acne Scars are Perceived in Society: an Online Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".