MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2603583188 · doi:10.1159/000469665

The Use of Direct Immunofluorescence in Frontal Fibrosing Alopecia

2017· article· en· W2603583188 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSkin Appendage Disorders · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHair Growth and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMediprobe Research (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDermatologyDirect fluorescent antibodyImmunofluorescenceMedicineImmunologyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) differs from lichen planopilaris (LPP) in many clinical aspects, but histology fails to distinguish between these entities. Direct immunofluorescence (DIF) is a diagnostic technique used for autoimmune diseases, including those affecting skin and hair. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> To characterize DIF patterns in patients with FFA. <b><i>Method:</i></b> Data was collected retrospectively from FFA cases presenting to the Centre de Santé Sabouraud Hair Clinic in Paris from November 2013 to November 2014. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Of 149 patients with FFA, 44 cases underwent DIF. Thirteen cases showed positive results with DIF. Patterns characteristic of LPP and lupus erythematosus were observed, with nearly half showing nonspecific staining. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> DIF patterns in patients with FFA were variable. This diagnostic technique should be used with caution in cases of cicatricial alopecia, particularly FFA.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.252 · 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