A systematic review and meta-analysis of psychiatric diseases in individuals with primary hyperhidrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Primary hyperhidrosis is associated with a substantial mental burden. In this study, the objective was to compare the occurrence of psychiatric diseases in individuals with and without primary hyperhidrosis by systematically reviewing the literature and conducting a meta-analysis. The PRISMA statement and the MOOSE checklist were employed. Cochrane Library, Embase and PubMed were searched. The risk of bias was determined by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random effects model was employed in the meta-analysis. Fifteen studies met the eligibility criteria, encompassing 50 429 participants with hyperhidrosis and 182 464 control participants. Hyperhidrosis was associated with increased odds of anxiety (odds ratio 3.5, 95% confidence interval 1.0-11.8) and depression (odds ratio 2.4, 95% confidence interval 1.4-4.0). Studies using outcome definitions for anxiety and depression and not included in the meta-analysis showed similar results. Studies reporting on other morbidities (i.e. body dysmorphic disorder, social phobia and stress) found a higher occurrence of these outcomes in the individuals with hyperhidrosis than in the control participants. Primary hyperhidrosis is associated with anxiety and depression. These results acknowledge the psychiatric burden that patients with primary hyperhidrosis experience.
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".