한국인 만성 특발성 두드러기 환자에서 가려움증의 특징에 대한 임상적 연구
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although itch is a cardinal symptom of urticaria, its clinical characteristics are not well elucidated in Korean urticaria patients. Objective: To characterize the clinical patterns and sensory, affective and therapeutic dimensions of itch in Korean patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU). Methods: A face-to-face structured questionnaire based on the McGill pain questionnaire was given to 83 patients with CIU. Results: All of the 83 patients recruited in the study have fully filled-out the questionnaire. In 71.1 percent of the total CIU patients, itch appeared on a daily basis. Patients experienced exacerbation of itch during winter (41.0%) and at night (37.3%). The buttock (50.6%) and front of the thigh (50.6%) were major sites of involvement with itchiness. Patients perceived itch as burning (62.7%), stinging (44.6%) and crawling sensations (42.2%), rather than stabbing (25.3%), tickling (24.1%) and pinching (10.8%). The main associated symptom was heating sensation (60.2%). The majority of the patients answered that itch was annoying (84.3%), worrisome (80.7%) and bothersome (78.3%). Korean CIU patients answered that stress (36.1%) and hot climate (33.7%) aggravated the itch, and medications (55.4%) alleviated it. Among antihistamines, systemic corticosteroids and topical corticosteroids, antihistamines were the most effective treatment for management of itch in patients with CIU. Conclusion: This study highlights the detailed description and characteristics of itch in Korean CIU patients. Moreover, we tried to emphasize the clinical differences of itch in CIU patients in comparison with that in atopic dermatitis patients.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".