What causes hidradenitis suppurativa ?—15 years after
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 14 authors of the first review article on hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) pathogenesis published 2008 in EXPERIMENTAL DERMATOLOGY cumulating from the 1st International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Research Symposium held March 30-April 2, 2006 in Dessau, Germany with 33 participants were prophetic when they wrote "Hopefully, this heralds a welcome new tradition: to get to the molecular heart of HS pathogenesis, which can only be achieved by a renaissance of solid basic HS research, as the key to developing more effective HS therapy." (Kurzen et al. What causes hidradenitis suppurativa? Exp Dermatol 2008;17:455). Fifteen years later, there is no doubt that the desired renaissance of solid basic HS research is progressing with rapid steps and that HS has developed deep roots among inflammatory diseases in Dermatology and beyond, recognized as "the only inflammatory skin disease than can be healed". This anniversary article of 43 research-performing authors from all around the globe in the official journal of the European Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation e.V. (EHSF e.V.) and the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation, Inc (HSF USA) summarizes the evidence of the intense HS clinical and experimental research during the last 15 years in all aspects of the disease and provides information of the developments to come in the near future.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".