MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hidradenitis Suppurativa

2015· review· en· W2413486900 on OpenAlexaff
Shirley C. Wang, Sheila C. Wang, Afsáneh Alavi, Raed Alhusayen, Morteza Bashash, R. Gary Sibbald

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Skin & Wound Care · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHidradenitis Suppurativa and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityPublic Health OntarioUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHidradenitis suppurativaMedicineIntertriginousQuality of life (healthcare)DiseaseAdverse effectWound careDermatologyPhysical therapyIntensive care medicineNursingPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To provide an overview of treatment recommendations for hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). TARGET AUDIENCE: This continuing education activity is intended for physicians and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care. OBJECTIVES: After participating in this educational activity, the participant should be better able to: Describe current recommendations for treatment of HS. Identify warnings, adverse effects, and implications for patient education. Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the intertriginous area. Patients with HS have several challenges to their quality of life and activities of everyday living, including malodor, purulent discharge, and discomfort. There is often a delay in diagnosis and appropriate treatment. The need for cosmetically acceptable local treatments and dressing application makes this disease an important challenge for wound care specialists. The choice of optimal treatment varies depending on the disease severity, expert knowledge, the availability of an interprofessional team, and patient factors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.363 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Skin & Wound CareSame topicHidradenitis Suppurativa and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207