Burden of visible [face and hands] skin diseases: Results from a large international survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While numerous surveys over the last decade have evaluated the burden of skin diseases, none have focused on the specific impact of disease-location on the hands and face. AIM: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the burden of 8 skin diseases on the multidimensional aspects of subjects' daily lives in respect to their location on visible body areas (face or hands) versus non-visible areas. METHODS: This was a population-based study in a representative sample of the Canadian, Chinese, Italian, Spanish, German and French populations, aged over 18 years using the proportional quota sampling method. All participants were asked (i) to complete a specific questionnaire including socio-demographic characteristics, (ii) to declare if they had a skin disease. All respondents with a skin disease were asked (iii) to specify the respective disease locations (hands, face, body) and (iv) to complete the DLQI questionnaire. Respondents with 8 selected skin diseases were asked (v) to complete a questionnaire evaluating the impact of the skin disease on their daily life, including their professional activity, social relations, emotional and intimate life, leisure, sports activities and perceived stigma. RESULTS: A total of 13,138 adult participants responded to the questionnaire, of whom 26.2 % (n = 3,450) had skin diseases, and 23.4 % (n = 3,072) reported having one of the 8 selected skin diseases. Fifty-three percent were women and the mean age was 39.6 ± 15.5 years. The QoL was mostly impaired when the visible localization was solely on the hands as compared with the face (38 % had a DLQI > 10 versus 22 % respectively). More subjects with a visible localization on the hands reported felt-stigma, having difficulty falling asleep and felt that their sex life had been affected. CONCLUSION: Special attention should be given to patients with skin disease on the hands and face as they are at higher risk of social exclusion and lower quality of 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".