MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283518348 · doi:10.1111/exd.14635

“Normal” TEWL‐how can it be defined? A systematic review

2022· review· en· W4283518348 on OpenAlexaff
Maxwell Green, Aileen M. Feschuk, Nadia Kashetsky, Howard I. Maïbach

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Dermatology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransepidermal water lossMedicineDermatologyInternal medicinePathologyStratum corneum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trans-epidermal water loss (TEWL), the total non-eccrine sweat water evaporating from a given area of epidermis over time, is a measurement of skin barrier integrity. Skin diseases (e.g., psoriasis and atopic dermatitis) often result in transient increases in TEWL, so, knowledge of "normal" TEWL values may be used to predict disease progression in dermatological settings. Variables such as age, race and anatomic location have been suggested to affect TEWL, but current regulatory agencies have failed to control for additional variables of interest. Thus, this review summarizes variables that may cause TEWL variation. A comprehensive literature search was performed using Embase, PubMed and Web of Science to find human studies that provided data on variables affecting TEWL. 31 studies, analysing 22 affecting TEWL, were identified. Variables causing increased TEWL were mask-use (n = 1), dry eye disease (n = 1), chronic venous disease (n = 1), coronary artery disease (n = 1), age (infants vs adults) (n = 4), nourishment in infants (n = 1), stress within individuals (n = 2), Body Mass Index (n = 2), bathing versus showering (n = 2) and scratching/friction (n = 1). Variables with decreases in TEWL were genetic variability with SNPs on chromosome 9q34.3 (n = 1) and cancer-cachexia (n = 1). We summarized 12 variables that impact TEWL and are not typically controlled for in experimental settings. Therefore, defining normal TEWL may currently be problematic. Thus, regulatory agencies should provide stricter guidelines on proper measurement of TEWL to minimize human introduced TEWL variation, and we should continue to examine factors impacting individual skin integrity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.009
Bibliometrics0.0130.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental DermatologySame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207