MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2972244485

Development of a Clinical Pathway for Atopic Dermatitis Patients: A Case-Based Approach.

2016· article· en· W2972244485 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lyn Guenther, Anneke Andriessen, Charles Lynde, John Toole, Gary Sibbald, James N. Bergman, Marc Bourcier, Ian Landells

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtopic dermatitisClinical trialIntensive care medicineClinical pathwayMEDLINEDiseaseDermatologyPathologyNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common chronic skin condition, associated with significant patient morbidity. There are a myriad of excellent evidenced based guidelines to guide clinicians by an extensive review of all the available treatments. However, while well written and complete these papers may not always allow easy transition to clinical application. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper was to develop a practical case-based approach for the treatment and maintenance of AD, enabling translation of guidelines into clinical care. METHODS: After literature searches, selected AD trials and recent existing guidelines were reviewed. Using a nominal group process for consensus, an expert panel of Canadian dermatologists determined the case features and corresponding treatments. RESULTS: A patient focused clinical pathway with 7 cases was developed. For each case scenario, treatment for mild, moderate, and severe disease was recommended. CONCLUSION: A practical case-based clinical pathway was developed for easy clinical application and optimal patient care. J Drugs Dermatol. 2016;15(12):1485-1494.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicDermatology and Skin Diseases→French-language works237,207→