Pharmacological Interventions for Primary Psychodermatologic Disorders: An Evidence Mapping and Appraisal of Randomized Controlled Trials
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The lack of clinical guidelines for the treatment of primary psychodermatologic disorders (PPDs) hinders the delivery of optimal care to patients. The review aimed to identify, appraise, and summarize the currently available evidence about the safety and effectiveness of pharmacological management of PPDs through randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRIMSA) statement and the Global Evidence Mapping Initiative guidance were followed. Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane and Scopus were searched, and two reviewers independently completed article review, data extraction, and quality assessment. RESULTS: = 1). Seven different classes of medications were investigated: SSRIs (i.e., fluoxetine, sertraline, and citalopram), tricyclic antidepressants (i.e., clomipramine and desipramine), antipsychotics (i.e., olanzapine and pimozide), anticonvulsant (i.e., lamotrigine), N-acetylcysteine, inositol, and milk thistle. RCT-derived evidence supports the use of antidepressants in trichotillomania (sertraline and clomipramine), pathologic skin picking (fluoxetine), pathologic nail biting and dermatitis from compulsive hand washing (clomipramine or desipramine); antipsychotics in trichotillomania (olanzapine) and delusional parasitosis (pimozide); N-acetyl cysteine in trichotillomania and skin picking. CONCLUSION: Few pharmacotherapies for primary psychodermatologic disorders are assessed through controlled trials in the literature. This review serves as a roadmap for researchers and clinicians to reach informed decisions with current evidence, and to build on it to establish guidelines in the future.
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.
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 | 0.019 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it