Incidence and Prevalence of Hidradenitis Suppurativa: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Hidradenitis is a chronic relapsing follicular occlusive disease with a widely variable reported prevalence. The exact prevalence and incidence of HS is unknown. Objectives To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature to estimate the global incidence and prevalence of HS. Methods Literature searches were performed on Medline, Embase, and Pubmed to identify studies reporting incidence and/or prevalence of HS. Pooled estimates of prevalence and incidence were calculated with a meta-analysis of proportions. Results In total, 12 studies were included (Australia, Brazil, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, UK, USA) comprising a total population of 53,805,690. Eleven studies reported prevalence. The pooled proportion of individuals in the general population with HS was 0.36% (95% CI 0.21 - 0.56). Self-reported HS gave a higher prevalence estimate than clinician-diagnosed HS. HS is more prevalent in women. Average annual incidence of HS was 28.5 cases/100,000 (95% CI 26.8 – 30.1). Conclusions We estimated the global prevalence of HS to be 0.36% with 3:2 female predominance and average annual incidence to be 28.5 cases/100,000.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".