MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943467249 · doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000449

Effects of Merino Wool on Atopic Dermatitis Using Clinical, Quality of Life, and Physiological Outcome Measures

2019· article· en· W2943467249 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joseph F. Fowler, Lynn M. Fowler, Douglas Lorenz

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian GovernmentAustralian Wool Innovation
KeywordsWoolAtopic dermatitisClothingMedicineDermatology Life Quality IndexDermatologyQuality of life (healthcare)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Wool clothing may be perceived as a poor choice for use by individuals with sensitive skin or atopic dermatitis. OBJECTIVES: The aims of the study were to evaluate the effect on atopic dermatitis of wearing fine Merino wool clothing versus standard clothing and to assess the effect of Merino wool clothing on quality of life in children and adults with atopic dermatitis 5 years and older. METHODS: Subjects with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis were assessed in a crossover fashion after wearing Merino wool clothing for 6 weeks and standard clothing for 6 weeks, for Eczema Area and Severity Index, Dermatology Life Quality Index, static Investigator's Global Assessment, and skin hydration. RESULTS: While wearing Merino wool clothing, compared with standard clothing, statistically significant improvements were seen in mean Eczema Area and Severity Index scores, Dermatology Life Quality Index scores, and static Investigator's Global Assessment scores. No significant difference was seen with skin hydration. Wearing Merino wool clothing did not produce any negative cutaneous effects compared with wearing standard clothing. CONCLUSIONS: Merino wool clothing compared with standard clothing provided improvements in severity of atopic dermatitis as well as quality of life in atopic 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207