Prescribing Home Narrowband UVB Phototherapy: A Review of Current Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conventional, full-body phototherapy equipment is costly and therefore patients are usually treated in dermatology centres. Such office-based therapy is often not feasible for those patients who live far away from a phototherapy centre due to lost time and wages, inability to travel because of extensive skin disease, or prohibitive travel costs. Home phototherapy has emerged as a modality that meets the needs of those patients. Our aim was to review available studies on UV sources, treatment protocols, efficacy, and safety of home phototherapy. A literature review was conducted on PubMed using the terms "home" AND "phototherapy" AND ("guide" OR "approach" OR "review" OR "protocol"). From the data extracted, narrowband UVB (311 nm) offers the best balance between safety and efficacy and is recommended for home phototherapy by most authors. Treatment is safe and possible adverse effects are related to overexposure (erythema, blistering). The usual treatment protocol was administering treatments on alternating days, including weekends, with dosing based on the patient's Fitzpatrick skin type. We also provide information on the available home phototherapy systems in Canada and their reimbursement. Home phototherapy is underused in Canada. Narrowband UVB phototherapy sources equipped with a 3-dimensional panel provides a practical and safe option.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".