Teledermatology and Virtual Visits for Acne Management: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acne vulgaris is a common dermatological condition requiring individualized management. Teledermatology provides convenience and accessibility that is highly suitable for this dermatological condition. Herein, our review aimed to describe the current state of teledermatology in the context of acne management and to assess patient satisfaction, adherence to virtual care, and the experiences of health care providers in delivering remote dermatological services. A systematic search for articles was conducted in Medline, Embase, and PubMed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Title, abstract, full-text screening, and data abstraction were carried out in duplicate. One thousand one hundred three nonduplicate articles were screened based on title and abstract review. A total of 21 studies were included in the review. It was found that teledermatology is well-suited to the effective management of acne vulgaris. When compared to in-person care, teledermatology resulted in similar outcomes on several acne-grading scales. Additionally, patient satisfaction was comparable, with a large proportion of patients preferring virtual care to traditional in-person visits. However, compliance was found to be lower for virtual care. There are several secondary benefits to telemedicine, including time savings and greater accessibility to care for rural patients. Teledermatology is an evolving, promising medium for acne management for both clinicians and patients. Future research comparing the effectiveness of different teledermatology platforms, its limitations and pitfalls, and integration of patient and physician preferences to improve treatment outcomes is warranted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".