MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220906884 · doi:10.20527/jbk.v18i1.12850

SENSITIVE SKIN: A NEW ENTITY PERSPECTIVE

2022· article· en· W4220906884 on OpenAlex
Putu Martha Gerynda Sukma, Windy Keumala Budianti, Sari Chairunnisa, Rinadewi Astriningrum

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBerkala Kedokteran · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsSKiN Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensitive skinMedicineDermatologySkin barrierSkin careQuantitative sensory testingPopulationHuman skinSensory systemIntensive care medicineNeuroscienceBiologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The phenomenon of “sensitive skin” is a relatively recent terminology in certain populations reporting sensory complaints that are more intense and more frequent than the normal population, especially after using cosmetic products. The incidence of sensitive skin is increasing along with the rapid widespread of skin care products availability. Various studies have been conducted but the pathophysiology of sensitive skin is still unclear. Physiological changes in sensitive skin are influenced by two main factors such as dysfunction in skin barrier and neurosensory. There are various quantitative sensory tests that can be done to determine skin sensitivity. Until now, there is no guideline for treating sensitive skin. Contributing factors, quantitative sensory tests, relation to skin diseases, and managements will be discussed in this literature review.Keywords: Dysfunction; Neurosensory; Sensitive skin; Skin barrier

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.587
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.169 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it