Patient‐reported outcomes of topical therapies in actinic keratosis: A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients' perspectives on actinic keratosis treatments may have an impact on treatment adherence and, therefore, therapeutic outcomes. We performed a systematic review to assess patients' perspectives of topical, field-directed treatments for actinic keratoses. A literature search was conducted, and 14 studies were identified encompassing 4433 patients. Only four studies were focused on face and/or scalp, which are the locations that typically impact patients' quality of life. Four studies were clinical trials. One study utilized a validated patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instrument specifically developed for actinic keratosis. In general, treatment adherence and patient satisfaction were better with shorter-duration treatment regimens such as ingenol mebutate gel. Imiquimod improved quality of life in one study but not in another. No data was available on topical piroxicam. The findings underscore the need for effective and well-tolerated, short-duration topical treatment for actinic keratosis.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it