MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403553347 · doi:10.1111/ijd.17536

Scabies: a historical perspective

2024· article· en· W4403553347 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph M. Lam, Wingfield Rehmus

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Dermatology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatological diseases and infestations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineScabiesPerspective (graphical)DermatologyMEDLINEArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this issue of the Journal, Uzun et al. nicely summarize the current knowledge on the diagnosis and management of scabies infestation.1 In their scoping review, the authors describe a health scourge that has plagued humans since antiquity. We can trace records of scabies infestation to biblical times, where the term zaraath (which initially referred to scaling skin but then became the origin of the word leprosy) likely referred to conditions including scabies infestation.2 This may explain how some were ‘cured’ of leprosy by bathing in the sulfur-rich Jordan River. We can also find records of scabies described as “lice in the flesh” in Aristotle's treatise De historia animalium. Aristotle's description of a contagious and itchy eruption caused by an organism that could be extracted from the skin with needles fits well with scabies and its scientific name, Sarcoptes scabiei var. hominis.2 Scabiei is derived from the Latin word scabere, which means to scratch and sarcoptes is from the Greek words sarx and koptein which mean “flesh cutting.” In 25 AD, the Roman author Aulus Cornelius Celsus was credited with first giving the name “scabies” to the disease and using a sulfur compound as a remedy. During the medieval period, poets such as Dante, in his Divine Comedy (circa 1308–1321 AD), described the suffering of alchemists and forgers from scabies. In the 16th century, physician and arthropod enthusiast Dr. Thomas Moffett correctly established the pathogenic role of the scabies mite, which he described and distinguished from the louse. The 17th century produced the first drawings of the scabies mite by August Hauptmann (1607–1674 AD) and Michael Ettmüller (1644–1683 AD), shortly after the pioneering work on the microscope. It was around this time that the parasite was first extracted from the end of a burrow on human skin (Figure 1a) by Giovanni Cosim Bonomo (1663–1696 AD) and documented in his famous letter entitled, “Observations concerning the fleshworms of the human body” in 1687. Using the microscope, he was able to observe a female mite depositing an egg (Figure 1b). Bonomo noted the contagiousness of the disease and found that external remedies could control scabies, while oral treatments at the time were of no use. In 1801, the physician Joseph Adams demonstrated the transmission of disease after affixing an extracted mite to his fingers, successfully infecting himself (and, inadvertently, his family).2 Until recently, diagnosis of scabies infestation was made via skin scraping, a method similar to the procedure in the 16th century where the mite would be removed using a needle from the skin. However, in 2007, dermoscopy was shown to be a very effective tool in diagnosing scabies (Figure 1c). It has high sensitivity, even in inexperienced hands, and the accuracy of diagnosis is enhanced using UV dermoscopy.3 While in the past, scabies was treated by manually removing the mites with a needle from the skin, the 20th century brought new treatments, such as topical permethrin, a version of natural pyrethrum found in the flowers of Tanacetum cinerariaefolium that was synthesized in the early 1970s, and oral ivermectin, a substance derived from a compound produced by microorganisms in Japanese soil in the late 1970s. Studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of individual patients and communities through mass drug administration of these agents for treating and controlling scabies.4 While we have had tremendous advances in the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of scabies, as presented in this issue,1 we must remain vigilant in our fight against this age-old disease, especially in the face of reports of resistance to permethrin in humans and oral ivermectin in animals.5

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 designNot applicable
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 venueInternational Journal of DermatologySame topicDermatological diseases and infestationsFrench-language works237,207