Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to summarize and highlight the recent literature in photodermatoses. In the past year, there have been many developments in this heterogeneous group of conditions. RECENT FINDINGS: This review is divided by photodermatoses type, which include idiopathic photodermatoses, photodermatoses secondary to exogenous agents, photodermatoses secondary to endogenous agents (the porphyrias), and genodermatoses. The idiopathic photodermatoses section focuses on case series and reports highlighting new disease presentations or further disease characterization and new treatment strategies for these disorders. The second section discusses a unique case and has a brief update on photoallergens. Clinical, diagnostic, and treatment updates for porphyrias are discussed in Section 3. For genodermatoses, we discuss complications and neoplastic risk of xeroderma pigmentosum and a few highlights from other rare disorders. Finally, we conclude with a brief overview of photoprotection updates, from assessing sun-damaged skin to the most effective photoprotective agents. SUMMARY: Up-to-date information will help providers identify and manage this rare group of disorders.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".