MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3084390448 · doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000644

Association of Childhood Atopic Dermatitis with Atopic and Nonatopic Multimorbidity

2020· article· en· W3084390448 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brian T. Cheng, Nanette B. Silverberg, Jonathan I. Silverberg

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtopic dermatitisComorbidityCharlson comorbidity indexMultimorbidityPediatricsMedical Expenditure Panel SurveyDiseaseHealth careDermatologyPsychiatryInternal medicineHealth insurance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the impact of multimorbidity in childhood atopic dermatitis (AD). OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the likelihood and predictors of chronic disease multimorbidity in childhood AD. METHODS: Data were examined for children (<18 years) in the 1996-2015 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, an annual, representative sample of United States households. Multimorbidity was assessed using Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), Healthcare Utilization Project Chronic Comorbidity Indicator (HCUP-CCI) and frequency of atopic comorbidities. RESULTS: Young children with mild-moderate and severe AD, and adolescents with mild-moderate AD had higher CCI scores. Similarly, young children and adolescents with mild-moderate and severe AD had increased HCUP-CCI scores. Children with AD and atopic disease had higher CCI and HCUP-CCI scores than children with either alone. Young children and adolescents with mild-moderate and severe AD had more atopic comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric AD is associated with increased atopic and non-atopic multimorbidity. Comorbid atopic disease may identify a subset of children with AD who particularly benefit from enhanced screening and management of multimorbidity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207