Assessing the Need for a Comprehensive Acne Quality-of-Life Scale for Face and Torso Acne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: While acne, a common condition, largely involves the face, chest, and back, current acne quality-of-life measures focus primarily on facial acne. The purpose of this study was to assess the need for a comprehensive quality-of-life measure intended for use with patients who have facial and/or torso acne. METHODS: We evaluated the need for a comprehensive quality-of-life scale for facial and torso acne based on data from an epidemiological survey (N = 690) in which participants were grouped according to the location of their acne (face, torso, or both) and where quality of life was assessed. RESULTS: Analysis of variance results revealed that participants with acne on their torso reported the highest levels of quality of life while participants with acne on their face reported the lowest levels. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for a quality-of-life instrument that assesses the impact of acne on the face and torso separately. This unmet need can be addressed with a comprehensive acne quality-of-life measure that is inclusive of torso acne.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".