Tropical Diseases and First Nations Dermatology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Information on the epidemiology of psoriasis remains limited, especially for indigenous populations around the world.This review aims to collate data that highlights the burden of psoriasis upon indigenous groups worldwide, and discuss the geographical, environmental, genetic and historical factors that have contributed to the unique prevalence of the disease in these communities.Methods: Out of 30 publications which observed the prevalence and incidence of psoriasis within indigenous communities, 18 were selected.Data is based on eight systematic reviews, four cross-sectional studies, three original articles, one case study and one letter to the editor.Results: A total of 9 indigenous populations were covered.In Greenland Inuit and Taiwan Ami people, psoriasis was estimated to be 'rare' with no reported cases.Within American Samoan people, 555 indigenous people in the Brazilian Auaris region and 3000 indigenous Australian people, prevalence was 0%, except two half-Aboriginal people in Australia who were diagnosed in a separate study.Out of 380 Chilean Mapuche people, prevalence was 0.26%.Within 1602 native people of the Peruvian Andean regions, prevalence was 1.6%.The Sami people of Norway were estimated to have a prevalence of 0.6% to 1.4%.The Ethiopian indigenous people of Tigray saw an incidence of 183 people per year.Conclusion: Most indigenous populations reported lower prevalence rates of psoriasis when compared to urban communities of the same country.Interestingly, low prevalence appears to result from four main factors: geographical distance from the equator, environmental influences and cultural beliefs of the people, genetic susceptibility to psoriasis paired with the introduction of infections and conditions through colonisation, and reduced access to specialised dermatological services for diagnosis and treatment.More efforts should be made to produce
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.010 |
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".