Emerging Methods to Objectively Assess Pruritus in Atopic Dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory skin disease with a chronic, relapsing course. Clinical features of AD vary by age, duration, and severity but can include papules, vesicles, erythema, exudate, xerosis, scaling, and lichenification. However, the most defining and universal symptom of AD is pruritus. Pruritus or itch, defined as an unpleasant urge to scratch, is problematic for many reasons, particularly its negative impact on quality of life. Despite the profoundly negative impact of pruritus on patients with AD, clinicians and researchers lack standardized and validated methods to objectively measure pruritus. The purpose of this review is to discuss emerging methods to assess pruritus in AD by describing objective patient-centered tools developed or enhanced over the last decade that can be utilized by clinicians and researchers alike. METHODS: This review is based on a literature search in Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The search was performed in February 2019. The keywords were used "pruritus," "itch," "atopic dermatitis," "eczema," "measurements," "tools," "instruments," "accelerometer," "wrist actigraphy," "smartwatch," "transducer," "vibration," "brain mapping," "magnetic resonance imaging," and "positron emission tomography." Only articles written in English were included, and no restrictions were set on study type. To focus on emerging methods, prioritization was given to results from the last decade (2009-2019). RESULTS: The search yielded 49 results in PubMed, 134 results in Embase, and 85 results in Web of Science. Each result was independently reviewed in a standardized manner by two of the authors (M.S., K.L.), and disagreements between reviewers were resolved by consensus. Relevant findings were categorized into the following sections: video surveillance, acoustic surveillance, wrist actigraphy, smart devices, vibration transducers, and neurological imaging. Examples are provided along with descriptions of how each technology works, instances of use in research or clinical practice, and as applicable, reports of validation studies and correlation with other methods. CONCLUSION: The variety of new and improved methods to evaluate pruritus in AD is welcomed by clinicians, researchers, and patients alike. Future directions include next-generation smart devices as well as exploring new territories, such as identifying biomarkers that correlate to itch and machine-learning programs to identify itch processing in the brain. As these efforts continue, it will be essential to remain patient-centered by developing techniques that minimize discomfort, respect privacy, and provide accurate data that can be used to better manage itch in AD.
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 | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".