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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the association between the clinical and histopathological classifications of actinic keratosis (AK) and the efficacy of topical imiquimod treatment. Forty patients (55 lesions) with AK were treated with topical 5% imiquimod and the efficacy of imiquimod for AK was evaluated based on the clinical/histopathological changes. The complete remission (CR) rates in patients with the different clinical classifications of AK were 85.4% (erythematous type) and 46.2% (hyperkeratotic type). The CR rates in the different histopathological classifications of AK were 80% (hypertrophic type), 81.8% (atrophic type) and 42.9% (bowenoid type). The results revealed that determining the clinical and histopathological type of AK was important for selecting a therapeutic method. The topical imiquimod treatment could be expected to be more effective for AK clinically classified as the erythematous type, or histopathologically classified as the atrophic or hypertrophic type. However, it would be expected to be less effective for the treatment of AK clinically classified as the hyperkeratotic type or histopathologically classified as the bowenoid type. Our observations suggest that we can predict the efficacy of topical imiquimod therapy in AK by determining its clinical and histopathological type.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it