Perspectives and knowledge of acne vulgaris among young adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acne occurs in up to 90% of young adolescents, but prior research has found that this population exhibits a limited understanding of acne and is vulnerable to myths and misinformation accumulated from family members, friends, and social media. We created a virtual presentation on skin hygiene, acne prevention, and acne-associated stigma for adolescent youth (aged 9-13) to improve acne health literacy, which was reviewed by three board-certified dermatologists. A descriptive cross-sectional study using data collected for quality improvement (n = 209, total) revealed that approximately half (n = 102/202, 50.5%) of all students believed that acne could not be treated with medications, only 34.0% (n = 67/197) believed acne could impact their mental health, and most students incorrectly believed that dirt buildup (n = 124/209, 59.3%) and poor hygiene (n = 125/209, 59.8%) were pathogenic for acne. Our results stress the necessity of early evidence-based educational interventions as a cornerstone to breaking self-perpetuating myths and misinformation that may lead to acne mismanagement, delayed access to healthcare, and permanent scarring later in life.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".