MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2408656883 · doi:10.1177/1203475416650427

Canadian Clinical Practice Guidelines for Rosacea

2016· review· en· W2408656883 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yuka Asai, Jerry Tan, Akerke Baibergenova, Benjamin Barankin, Chris L. Cochrane, Shannon Humphrey, Charles Lynde, Danielle Marcoux, Yves Poulin, Jason K. Rivers, Mariusz Sapijaszko, R. Gary Sibbald, John Toole, Marcie Ulmer, Catherine Zip

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcne and Rosacea Treatments and Effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of AlbertaUniversité LavalUniversité de MontréalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of WindsorWestern UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineQueen's University
FundersGalderma
KeywordsRosaceaMedicineDermatologyPsychological interventionErythemaQuality of life (healthcare)Intensive care medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rosacea is a chronic facial inflammatory dermatosis characterized by background facial erythema and flushing and may be accompanied by inflammatory papules and pustules, cutaneous fibrosis and hyperplasia known as phyma, and ocular involvement. These features can have adverse impact on quality of life, and ocular involvement can lead to visual dysfunction. The past decade has witnessed increased research into pathogenic pathways involved in rosacea and the introduction of novel treatment innovations. The objective of these guidelines is to offer evidence-based recommendations to assist Canadian health care providers in the diagnosis and management of rosacea. These guidelines were developed by an expert panel of Canadian dermatologists taking into consideration the balance of desirable and undesirable outcomes, the quality of supporting evidence, the values and preferences of patients, and the costs of treatment. The 2015 Cochrane review "Interventions in Rosacea" was used as a source of clinical trial evidence on which to base the recommendations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.219
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.275 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations69
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and SurgerySame topicAcne and Rosacea Treatments and EffectsFrench-language works237,207