MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971765212 · doi:10.1177/1203475419857669

Evidence Review of Topical Calcineurin Inhibitors for the Treatment of Adult Atopic Dermatitis

2019· article· en· W2971765212 on OpenAlexaff
Chih-ho Hong, Melinda Gooderham, Robert Bissonnette

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsInnovaderm (Canada)Probity Medical ResearchQueen's UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersDermiraSanofiLEO PharmaLEO Pharma Research FoundationPfizer
KeywordsPimecrolimusMedicineTacrolimusCalcineurinDermatologyAtopic dermatitisSurgeryTransplantation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) were approved in the early 2000s for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD), and despite the recent introduction of newer topical and systemic therapies for AD, TCIs such as tacrolimus ointment (0.03% and 0.1%) and pimecrolimus cream (1%), remain recommended treatment options in contemporary management guidelines. The goal of this article is to review the evidence supporting the approved indications for TCIs in adults with AD, including short-term treatment of active disease and as intermittent or maintenance treatment for the prevention of flares. Other evidence reviewed in this article includes the treatment of specific body areas (such as the face and eyelids), combination or sequential use of TCIs with topical corticosteroids, and the comparative efficacy of the 2 commercially available TCIs. This review of the evidence confirms that TCIs remain an effective treatment option for the management of adult 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and SurgerySame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207