MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954050059 · doi:10.1159/000496338

Keratolytic Winter Erythema: An Update

2019· review· en· W2954050059 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michèle Ramsay, Thandiswa Ngcungcu, Wayne Grayson

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatopathology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSkin and Cellular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHaukeland UniversitetssjukehusDalhousie University
KeywordsStratum corneumStratum granulosumErythemaPathologyFilaggrinKeratolyticMedicineCorneocyteDermatologyDesquamation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Keratolytic winter erythema (KWE) is a rare autosomal dominant keratoderma affecting primarily the palms and soles, manifesting with recurrent waves of erythema followed by epidermal peeling. The condition is so named in view of its anecdotal worsening during the winter months. It is highly penetrant but shows considerable individual clinical variability, waning and reappearing throughout the life course. Histologically, early established lesions of KWE manifest with degenerative changes involving the Malpighian layer, with associated absence of the stratum granulosum. The damaged zone undergoes parakeratotic transformation and subsequent centrifugal ejection. Thick peeling occurs when the stratum corneum eventually separates off as a result of a keratolytic split occurring above, through or below the parakeratotic zone. Reconstitution of the stratum granulosum ensues. KWE is caused by a duplication of an intergenic enhancer element upstream of the cathepsin B gene on chromosome 8. This leads to the upregulation of cathepsin B in the stratum granulosum and subsequent peeling of the epidermis as the end result. With elucidation of the molecular pathology of KWE, new therapeutic approaches to KWE may be considered.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.311 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatopathologySame topicSkin and Cellular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207