The Impact of Nail Psoriasis and Treatment on Quality of Life: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At least 80% of patients with psoriasis will have nail involvement during their lifetimes. Understanding quality of life (QoL) impact of this condition and associated treatments is of utmost importance. Study objectives were to review the available literature describing patient-reported QoL outcomes in nail psoriasis and relationship with disease severity and treatment. A literature search was performed for English-language articles published prior to August 1, 2020. Articles were included in the review if primary data and validated patient-reported outcome measures assessing QoL were presented, and nail involvement was specifically examined. Fifteen studies were included in the final analysis. Patients with nail psoriasis had higher Psoriasis Area Severity Index and Dermatology Life Quality Index scores than those with psoriasis without nail involvement. The largest percent improvement in QoL score was associated with adalimumab. Studies investigating topicals, intralesionals, and systemic treatments were excluded since only biologic studies utilized validated patient-reported outcome measures. This review affirms that nail psoriasis is physically and emotionally distressing, warranting prompt treatment. Increased efforts are needed to address the impact of treatment on patient QoL using validated outcome measures that assess cosmetic, physical, and social problems.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".