Discordance of pediatric morphea treatment by pediatric dermatologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Studies describing treatment efficacy in pediatric morphea are lacking. Subspecialists have reached no consensus on how to optimally treat pediatric morphea. The objective of the current study was to describe the most common treatment practices of pediatric dermatologists worldwide who care for children with morphea. METHODS: A survey regarding topical treatment practices of pediatric morphea, with representative case-based scenarios, was distributed to pediatric dermatologists and results were tallied. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 13.4%, with 110 respondents in the final analysis. The majority of respondents agreed on red violaceous rim (99%), increased local warmth (75%), raised borders (69%), and dermal thickening (64%) as signs of disease activity. Respondents had less agreement on sclerotic lesions (41%), scaling (43%), dyspigmentation (19%), and atrophy (13%) as signs of disease activity. Ninety-two percent of respondents used primary therapy or monotherapy with topical medications, including 45% in linear morphea of the limbs and 37% in linear morphea of the head or neck. High-potency topical corticosteroids were most commonly used (80%), although respondents did not agree on specific regimens. Sixteen different treatment regimens were selected as first-line therapy for one case scenario of active disease. CONCLUSION: The survey found large variation in how pediatric dermatologists treat pediatric morphea. Consensus treatment guidelines developed by pediatric dermatologists and pediatric rheumatologists are urgently needed regarding the efficacy of therapies for pediatric morphea. Prospective studies of treatment efficacy in pediatric morphea are urgently needed as well.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".