Bullous Dermatoses and Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: There is a lack of evidence synthesis on the association between bullous skin disease and depression. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize and interpret the current evidence on the association between bullous skin disease and depression. EVIDENCE REVIEW: This review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and reviewed literature related to bullous skin disease and depression in the PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, and Cochrane databases published between 1945 and February 2021. The quality of each included article was assessed via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021230750). FINDINGS: A total of 17 articles were identified that analyzed a total of 83 910 patients (55.2% female; specifically, 6951 patients with bullous pemphigoid, 1669 patients with pemphigus, and 79 patients with epidermolysis bullosa were analyzed). The prevalence of depressive symptoms among patients with bullous dermatoses ranged from 40% to 80%. The prevalence of depression diagnosis among patients with bullous dermatoses ranged from 11.4% to 28%. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this systematic review, high rates of depression and depressive symptoms existed among patients with bullous skin disease. Adequate treatment of bullous dermatoses may be associated with a decrease in mental health burden on patients.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".