MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400849128 · doi:10.1016/j.jdrv.2024.07.002

Development of crusted scabies during biologic therapy: A systematic review

2024· review· en· W4400849128 on OpenAlexaff
Derrick Chong, Dropen Sheka, Ilya Mukovozov

Bibliographic record

VenueJAAD reviews. · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatological diseases and infestations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineScabiesRashSystematic reviewMEDLINEDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor: Crusted scabies (CS) is a rare severe form of scabies characterized by high mite burden and crusted scaling lesions that often manifest in immunocompromised patients.1 Biologics are targeted immunomodulators and may increase the risk of developing CS. Given that CS can lead to severe consequences such as sepsis,1 it is important for physicians to consider CS in patients undergoing immune-suppressing therapies presenting with a nonresolving rash. Therefore, this systematic review summarizes reports of CS in patients undergoing biologic therapy.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAAD reviews.Same topicDermatological diseases and infestationsFrench-language works237,207