The Personalized Acne Treatment Tool — Recommendations to facilitate a patient-centered approach to acne management from the Personalizing Acne: Consensus of Experts
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
BackgroundAcne, a commonly treated skin disease, requires patient-centered management due to its varying presentations, chronicity, and impact on health-related quality of life. Despite this, evidence-based clinical guidelines focus primarily on clinical severity of facial acne, omitting important patient- and disease-related factors, including ongoing management.ObjectivesTo generate recommendations to support patient-centered acne management, which incorporate priority and prognostic factors beyond conventional clinical severity, traditionally defined by grading the appearance and extent of visible lesions.MethodsThe Personalizing Acne: Consensus of Experts consisted of 17 dermatologists who used a modified Delphi approach to reach consensus on statements regarding patient- and treatment-related factors pertaining to patient-centered acne management. Consensus was defined as ≥75% voting “agree” or “strongly agree.”ResultsRecommendations based on factors such as acne sequelae, location of acne, high burden of disease, and individual patient features were generated and incorporated into the Personalized Acne Treatment Tool.LimitationsRecommendations are based on expert opinion, which may differ from patients’ perspectives. Regional variations in healthcare systems may not be represented.ConclusionsThe Personalizing Acne: Consensus of Experts panel provided practical recommendations to facilitate individualized management of acne, based on patient features, which can be implemented to improve treatment outcomes, adherence, and patient satisfaction. Acne, a commonly treated skin disease, requires patient-centered management due to its varying presentations, chronicity, and impact on health-related quality of life. Despite this, evidence-based clinical guidelines focus primarily on clinical severity of facial acne, omitting important patient- and disease-related factors, including ongoing management. To generate recommendations to support patient-centered acne management, which incorporate priority and prognostic factors beyond conventional clinical severity, traditionally defined by grading the appearance and extent of visible lesions. The Personalizing Acne: Consensus of Experts consisted of 17 dermatologists who used a modified Delphi approach to reach consensus on statements regarding patient- and treatment-related factors pertaining to patient-centered acne management. Consensus was defined as ≥75% voting “agree” or “strongly agree.” Recommendations based on factors such as acne sequelae, location of acne, high burden of disease, and individual patient features were generated and incorporated into the Personalized Acne Treatment Tool. Recommendations are based on expert opinion, which may differ from patients’ perspectives. Regional variations in healthcare systems may not be represented. The Personalizing Acne: Consensus of Experts panel provided practical recommendations to facilitate individualized management of acne, based on patient features, which can be implemented to improve treatment outcomes, adherence, and patient satisfaction.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it