Self-reported Versus Physician-reported Severity of Chronic Hand Eczema: Concordance Analysis Based on Data from the German Chronic Hand Eczema Patient Long-Term Management Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-assessment of general health status has a significant influence on patient-related outcomes. The aims of this study were to investigate and compare the level of agreement between patients' and dermatologists' assessments of the severity of chronic hand eczema. From the German registry "German Chronic Hand Eczema Patient Long-Term Management Registry" (CARPE), 1,281 pairs of patients with chronic hand eczema and their dermatologists were included. Of these, 788 pairs served as a comparison 2 years after baseline. Concordance analyses found that complete concordance between patients' and dermatologists' assessments were 16.62% at baseline and 11.47% at follow-up. Overall, patients assessed their chronic eczema at baseline as more severe than did the dermatologists; whereas, at follow-up, patients assessed their condition as less severe than the dermatologists' assessment. Bangdiwala's B showed lower values of concordance for womens' and older patients' self-assessment with the dermatologists' assessments. In conclusion, dermatologists should consider the patient's perspective and the individual's assessment of their chronic hand eczema in order to provide effective care in clinical practice.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".