Understanding Hurley Stage III Hidradenitis Suppurativa Patients’ Experiences With Pain: A Cross-Sectional Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More than 90% of patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) report that pain interferes with their quality of life (QoL) and pain may have a larger impact on QoL than disease severity alone. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to understand the impact of pain on the daily lives of patients with Hurley stage III HS. METHODS: 18 years old with Hurley stage III HS in at least one area of the body were prospectively invited to participate in this study. The study consisted of survey questions on patients' demographic information, past medical histories, HS-related pain histories, and previous therapies for pain management. Additionally, patients completed a series of standardized rating scales on their pain and overall QoL. RESULTS: Of the 10 patients that participated in the study, 90% (9/10) expressed a desire for more counselling on pain management options. Many patients (8/10, 80%) reported routine use of over-the-counter pain medications and 70% (7/10) used complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) to manage their pain. Patients' efficacy ratings of HS treatments in controlling their pain revealed that topical treatments provided minimal or no relief, while surgical interventions had the highest efficacy for reducing pain. Patients' average worst pain over the preceding 24 hrs was 6.3 +/- 2.5 (2-9) on the Numerical Rating Scale for pain and the mean Dermatology Life Quality Index score was 19.5 +/- 8.2 (5-29). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with Hurley stage III HS report high levels of daily pain and QoL impairment and many individuals use over-the-counter treatments and CAMs to manage their pain. Physicians involved in the care of HS patients should consider implementing routine counselling on pain management into their clinical practices, especially for patients with severe HS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".