Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic, recurrent inflammatory disease of the pilosebaceous follicle that severely affects patients' quality of life and can be challenging for clinicians to manage. A few case series have reported on the efficacy of acitretin monotherapy in the treatment of intractable HS. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of acitretin for the treatment of intractable HS. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted involving all patients with HS who received acitretin between January 2011 and January 2015 in a tertiary academic medical center. All patients with HS who received acitretin, either as a monotherapy or as an adjuvant to other systemic medications, were included, and clinical response was assessed using the physician global scale. RESULTS: Fourteen patients with HS (mean age 48 years [range 32-64 years]; 9 [64%] were men) received acitretin. Most patients (86%) had Hurley stage II or III disease. All patients had failed other standard systemic medications prior to initiating acitretin. Six patients (43%) received acitretin monotherapy, and 8 patients (57%) received acitretin as an adjuvant to other standard systemic medications. None of the patients who received acitretin monotherapy exhibited clinical improvements. Clinical improvements were observed in 7 of the 8 (87.5%) patients who received acitretin as an adjuvant to other systemic medications, with 3 patients (37.5%) exhibiting partial response and 4 patients (50%) exhibiting good response. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Acitretin monotherapy was ineffective for the treatment of intractable HS. Acitretin may be effective when used as an adjuvant to other systemic medications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.011 |
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".