Evaluation of a Modified Version of the United Kingdom Working Party Diagnostic Criteria for Atopic Dermatitis in Tunisia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For many years, the United Kingdom (UK) Working Party diagnostic criteria for atopic dermatitis (AD) have represented the criteria of choice for epidemiological studies. A recent study has reported a low sensitivity of these criteria among Tunisian patients, probably because of some epidemiologic characteristics of AD in our country. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to validate a modified version of the UK Working Party criteria for AD in Tunisia by establishing their sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value and negative predictive value. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This case-control study was performed over a period of 18 months in our dermatology department in Tunisia. The diagnosis of AD was established clinically by 2 dermatologists who specialized in dermatoallergology. Based on the UK Working Party diagnostic criteria and respecting the epidemiological peculiarities of AD in Tunisia, we proposed a modified version of diagnostic criteria adapted to Tunisian AD. The modifications concerned the first, fourth, and fifth minor criteria of the UK Working Party diagnostic criteria list. RESULTS: We collected 156 patients and 156 controls. The mean age of AD onset was 7 years and 9 months. The inverted topography of lesions was found in 67.9% of cases. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive, value and negative predictive value were, respectively, 56.4%, 97.4%, 95.65%, and 69.09% for the UK Working Party diagnostic criteria and 89.1%, 95.5%, 95.1%, and 89.7% for the modified version. CONCLUSIONS: This modified version of the UK criteria seems to be a practical diagnosis tool for AD in Tunisia.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".