Validity of infant face skin assessment by parents at home
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parents had better to assess their infant's skin daily to prevent the development of any skin problems. However, there are no standard methods for assessing infant skin at home. This study aimed to validate the assessment of infant face skin conditions by parents as compared to using skin barrier function clinical tests. In addition, we evaluated the degree of agreement between parents and physicians/midwives when assessing an infant's skin. A cross-sectional study involving 184 infants aged 3 months was conducted. To evaluate the parents' infant skin assessment, we used the Neonatal Skin Condition Score (NSCS). On the same day, we evaluated the skin barrier function on the infant's forehead and cheek, including transepidermal water loss (TEWL), stratum corneum hydration, skin pH, and sebum secretion. Skin barrier function values were correlated with infant skin condition assessed by parents, especially in cases of TEWL of the cheek, for which a moderate positive correlation was found between parental assessment score (ρ = 0.448). In addition, infant with skin problems based on parental assessment had a significantly higher TEWL, lower SCH, and higher skin pH. However, there was weak agreement between parental and physician/midwife assessment. Thus, there was a relationship between parental assessment and skin barrier function; thus, parents can use at-home assessment to assist with infant skin care. In the future, research focused on developing methods of examining infant skin conditions should consider incorporate parental daily skin assessment.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".