MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3100912947 · doi:10.1111/ijd.15295

A survey of clinicians regarding preferred severity assessment tools for hidradenitis suppurativa

2020· letter· en· W3100912947 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Rob L. Shaver, Gregor B. E. Jemec, Rebecca Freese, Afsáneh Alavi, Michelle A. Lowes, Noah Goldfarb

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Dermatology · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHidradenitis Suppurativa and Treatments
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institutes of HealthLEO PharmaCilagColoplastLEO FondetEli Lilly and CompanyGaldermaIncyteRegeneron PharmaceuticalsInflaRxLes Laboratories Pierre FabreCelgeneValeant Pharmaceuticals InternationalSanofiPfizer
KeywordsHidradenitis suppurativaMedicineDermatologyMEDLINESeverity of illnessPathologyInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic, relapsing-remitting skin disease characterized by inflammatory nodules, abscesses, and tunnels involving intertriginous sites. 1 HS outcome measures have traditionally relied on lesion counts, the accuracy of which has recently been questioned.2 In 2016, Ingram et al. reviewed 12 randomized-controlled trials in HS and reported that 90% of the 30 outcome measure instruments used lacked validity data.3 Since then, additional validation has been completed and new outcome tools have been proposed.In consequence of doubts raised regarding lesion counts, tools relying on body surface area (BSA) and signs of inflammation have recently been proposed, including the Severity and Area Score for Hidradenitis (SASH) 4 , and Hidradenitis Suppurativa Area and Severity Index

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of DermatologySame topicHidradenitis Suppurativa and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207