Questions and answers in chronic urticaria: where do we stand and where do we go?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This supplement reports proceedings of the second international Global Urticaria Forum, which was held in Berlin, Germany in November 2015. In 2011, a report of the GA(2) LEN task force on urticaria outlined important and unanswered questions in chronic urticaria (CU). These included, but were not limited to, questions on the epidemiology and course of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) [also called chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU)], the resources allocated for the diagnosis and treatment of CSU, whether patients with angioedema as an isolated symptom can be regarded as a subgroup of CSU, and the efficacy and long-term safety of therapies. Many of these questions have been addressed by recent studies. Some of the answers obtained raise new questions. Here, we summarize some of the key insights on CU obtained over recent years, and we discuss old and new unmet needs and how to address them with future studies. We need to analyze the influence of recent advances in understanding of the burden of CU on patients and society, disease management and the CU patient journey. Our increased understanding of urticarial pathophysiology and consideration of the patient as a whole will need to be translated to better treatment algorithms and protocols. Actions to address these challenges include the 5th International Consensus Meeting on Urticaria, which will take place later this year. The formation of a global network of Urticaria Centers of Reference and Excellence over the next few years has also been proposed, with the aim of providing consistent excellence in urticaria management and a clear referral route, furthering knowledge of urticaria through additional research and educating/promoting awareness of urticaria.
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 | 0.009 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.009 |
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".