MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404006332 · doi:10.15690/vsp.v23i5.2805

Evaluation of Eating Behavior in Children with Psoriasis: Retrospective Cross Sectional Study

2024· article· en· W4404006332 on OpenAlexaff
Vladislav V. Ivanchikov, Eduard Т. Ambarchian, Anastasia D. Kuzminova

Bibliographic record

VenueВопросы современной педиатрии · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsChildren’s Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCross-sectional studyPsoriasisRetrospective cohort studyMedicineEnvironmental healthPsychologyDermatologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Patients with psoriasis have increased thickness of visceral fat, including epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) that has wide spectrum of biological effects. Its thickness can be affected by the presence of obesity and eating behavior (EB) changes. Studying the associations between EB and markers of adipose tissue functional activity in children with psoriasis may help to better understand this variables correlations in the scope of comorbidities. Objective. Aim of the study is to analyze the relationship between Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI), EAT thickness, and leptin levels in pediatric patients with psoriasis and EB disorders. Methods. Retrospective cross sectional single-center study was conducted. 72 medical records of children with psoriasis (with varying body mass index level) who were examined and treated in dermatology department in the period from December 2021 to January 2024. All included patients have underwent dietician consultation and survey with DEBQ and CEBQ questionnaires, as a result predominant EB type was determined. EAT thickness (via two-dimensional echocardiography) and leptin levels were also measured. Psoriasis severity was evaluated via PASI and CDLQI indices. Patients were divided into three groups: with external, emotiogenic, and restrictive EB. The medians of the obtained values were calculated with determination of the confidence interval, all results were compared with each other via Kruskall-Wallis test. Results. Group of patients with external EB has shown following results: median EAT thickness was 2.5 mm (Q1–Q3: 2.1–2.8), median leptin level — 17.3 ng/ml (Q1–Q3: 14.4–26.4), median of PASI — 17 points (Q1–Q3: 12.5–20.5), median of CDLQI — 7 points (Q1–Q3: 4–13.5). Group of patients with emotionogenic EB has median EAT thickness of 2.2 mm (Q1–Q3: 1.85–2.55), median leptin level — 20.1 ng/ml (Q1–Q3: 14.5–23.95), median of PASI — 14 points (Q1–Q3: 12–16.5), median of CDLQI — 6 points (Q1–Q3: 3–12). Group of patients with restrictive EB has median EAT thickness of 3.4 mm (Q1–Q3: 3.1–3.9), median leptin level — 28.2 ng/ml (Q1–Q3: 26.1–33.5), median of PASI — 24 points (Q1–Q3: 21–27), median of CDLQI — 13 points (Q1–Q3: 9–21). Statistically significant (p = 0.0014) increase in PASI and CDLQI points was observed at comparison of different groups via Kruskall-Wallis test. Patients from restrictive EB group have shown higher values of EAT thickness, leptin levels, PASI, and CDLQI scores compared to patients with emotionogenic and external EB. No statistically significant differences were observed when comparing leptin levels and EAT thickness in the remaining groups. Conclusion. Patients with restrictive EB had higher PASI and CDLQI scores compared to patients with emotionogenic and external EB. No statistically significant differences were observed when comparing EAT thickness and leptin levels. Small study sample was the only research limitation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueВопросы современной педиатрииSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207