Validation of a physician global assessment tool for vitiligo extent: Results of an international vitiligo expert meeting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, vitiligo lacks a validated Physician Global Assessment (PGA) for disease extent. This PGA can be used to stratify and interpret the numeric scores obtained by the Vitiligo Extent Score (VES). We investigated the interrater reliability of a 5-point PGA scale during an international vitiligo workshop. Vitiligo experts from five different continents rated photographs of non-segmental vitiligo patients with varying degrees of extent with the PGA score. Good interrater agreements (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.6) were observed between the raters overall and within each continent. All hypotheses to evaluate construct validity were confirmed. Median VES values per category were for limited 1.10 [IQR: 0.21-1.67], moderate 3.17 [IQR: 1.75-6.21], extensive 9.58 [IQR: 6.21-13.03] and very extensive 42.67 [IQR: 21.20-42.67]. Defined categories for vitiligo extent can be valuable for inclusion criteria and may impact future reimbursement criteria.
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 | 0.043 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".