Dermatologists’ Perspectives on Defining Moderate Psoriasis: The Canadian Moderate Psoriasis Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is commonly classified as either mild or moderate to severe, without specific parameters to differentiate moderate versus severe disease. This may lead to patients with moderate psoriasis being underrecognized and undertreated. OBJECTIVE: An online survey was conducted to assess Canadian dermatologists’ perspectives on the definition and treatment of psoriasis. METHOD: Dermatologists included in the survey were regional and national leaders with expertise in psoriasis. Questions were developed based on feedback from a steering committee of Canadian dermatologists. RESULTS: Of 88 dermatologists contacted, 69 responded; 42.0% were in practice for >20 years. Most dermatologists reported using the percentage of psoriasis-affected body surface area (BSA) to describe disease severity (90.8% for moderate and 87.5% for severe psoriasis). The lower and upper median cutoffs for moderate psoriasis were reported as 5.0% and 10.0% for BSA and 7.0 and 11.5 for the Dermatology Life Quality Index. Most dermatologists also consider psoriasis location (eg, palms, scalp, genital area, face) as an important indicator of disease severity. The majority of Canadian dermatologists (87.5%) identified access to treatment as one of the biggest challenges for patients with moderate psoriasis. Most dermatologists estimated that ≤40% of their patients with moderate plaque psoriasis were being treated with traditional oral systemics, targeted oral systemics, or biologics. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first survey of Canadian dermatologists on moderate psoriasis. Efforts are needed to implement a clinically useful definition of moderate plaque psoriasis to improve patient care and to raise awareness of the definition among regulatory agencies and reimbursement authorities. J Drugs Dermatol. 2021;20(2):126-132. doi:10.36849/JDD.5531.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".