Hidradenitis Suppurativa From a Patient Perspective Including Symptoms and Self-Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Hidradenitis Suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory disordercommonly affecting body folds. It can significantly impair quality of life due to the physical, psychological, and socialturmoil experienced by patients. Treatment remains a challenge.Limited data on the HS patient experience, such as self-treatment exists. METHODS: This was a single-center cross-sectional study, utilizing a paper-based survey. Surveys were mailed out to all HS patients from the dermatology clinic and completed on a voluntary basis. Demographics, disease characteristics, medical and family history, treatments tried, and life quality were documented. RESULTS: The response rate was 49.4% (41/83), with a female predominance (26/41). Eighty-five percent (35/41) were Caucasian with an average age and BMI of 39.0 ± 16.78 and 30.71 ± 7.02, respectively. In total, 24.4% (10/41), 56.0% (23/41), and 19.5% (8/41) had Hurley I, II, and III, respectively. Lesions affected the genital region (75.6%), thigh/groin (68.2%), and axilla (46.3). Almost half (49%) of patients experienced an average of 1-2 flares per month. The most bothersome symptoms were pain (92.7%), discharge (68.3%), malodor (63.4%), and itch (61%). Depression (53.7%), severe facial acne (14.6%), and hypertension (14.6%) were the most common co-morbidities. Treatments used included antibiotics (82.9%) and surgical excision (34.2%) were. Over 90% of patients reportedself-treatment of lesions by squeezing (80.5%), soaking (53.7%), and lancing (41.4%). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into the patient perspective of HS. We identify itch as a symptom that is not frequently associated with HS and reveal how commonly patients utilize various types of self-treatment in their experience of disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".