MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399134568 · doi:10.1177/12034754241253195

Efficacy of Treatments in Reducing Inflammatory Lesion Count in Rosacea: A Systematic Review

2024· review· en· W4399134568 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan S.Q. Geng, Siddhartha Sood, Nicholas Hua, Jennifer Chen, R. Gary Sibbald, Cathryn Sibbald

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcne and Rosacea Treatments and Effects
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRosaceaMedicineDermatologyMetronidazoleIsotretinoinLesionAcneMinocyclinePopulationSurgeryAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory skin condition affecting approximately 5.5% of the global population. Patients present heterogeneously with a mix of features in the central facial region, of which papules and pustules are considered to be a major feature. The identification of effective treatments for reducing inflammatory lesions in rosacea can alleviate the psychosocial burden that many rosacea patients experience, including reduced self-esteem, anxiety, and social withdrawal. The objective of this systematic review is to determine the effectiveness of topical and systemic therapies in reducing lesion count in rosacea patients. METHODS/RESULTS: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched, resulting in the inclusion of 43 clinical trials reporting on a total of 18,347 rosacea patients. The most well-studied treatments include ivermectin, metronidazole, azelaic acid, minocycline, and doxycycline. Oral isotretinoin was the most effective treatment in reducing inflammatory lesions and may be recommended for severe recalcitrant cases of rosacea. CONCLUSIONS: mites. Additional research is required to determine effective combination therapies in rosacea.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.008
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and SurgerySame topicAcne and Rosacea Treatments and EffectsFrench-language works237,207