Long-term topical management of psoriasis: the road ahead
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Topical therapies have been available for the treatment of psoriasis for several decades. Despite this and the availability of several types of topicals, with varying potency, and numerous vehicles of administration, the majority of clinical data and guidance is on short-term use in the management of psoriasis. The aim of this manuscript is to review the unmet needs that exist in the long-term management of psoriasis and provide the dermatology community with an understanding that a treatment regimen with topical therapies could be the best treatment option at least for some phases of this chronic relapsing disease. We present a 'call to action' on the need for clinical alignment on terminology in the field and recommend the term 'long-term management' be adopted as the most appropriate in the context of this manuscript. This expert opinion report provides a detailed review of the limited evidence available regarding long-term use of topical therapies for the management of psoriasis, alongside our key considerations and recommendations to assist dermatologists with the implementation of topicals as part of long-term management strategies. Long-term management should be considered mandatory to ensure patients receive appropriate proactive treatment which may help optimize adherence and long-term outcomes.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".