MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2400729492 · doi:10.2310/6620.2008.08027

Fabric Preferences of Atopic Dermatitis Patients

2009· article· en· W2400729492 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Susan Nedorost

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLyocellTransepidermal water lossWrinkleMedicineAtopic dermatitisItchingDermatologySensitive skinPathologyGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) patients have sensitive skin with impaired barrier function. Lyocell is a cellulosic fiber that offers unique characteristics and may be suitable for use by AD patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare preferences of subjects with atopic dermatitis and normal skin for 100% lyocell clothing and bedding versus 100% cotton fabrics. METHODS: Thirty subjects were enrolled and randomly selected to use cotton or lyocell shirts, pajamas, and bedding for 1 week. Following a 1-week washout period, participants wore the other fabric for 1 week. At the end of each week, participants completed a preference questionnaire, and AD subjects also rated daily itching on a visual analog scale. A random subset of AD and normal participants underwent measurement of transepidermal water loss (TEWL). RESULTS: Overall, there was a significant preference for lyocell (vs cotton) for its softness, temperature control, moisture control, and wrinkle resistance. AD subjects did not have stronger fabric preferences than did normal subjects. Although not significant, lower average itching and decreased TEWL were seen in participants while they wore lyocell. CONCLUSION: Lyocell is superior to cotton in many performance characteristics and equivalent to cotton for itch reduction. Lyocell is currently available as a beneficial fabric to improve patient comfort.

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 score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.249
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

Citations24
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207