Ocular Manifestations in Selected Dermatological Disorders: A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Skin disorders are often associated with ocular symptoms. In this review, we aim to identify the most common ocular manifestations observed in selected dermatological diseases, specifically psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, rosacea, and pemphigus. We highlight key ophthalmological conditions linked to these diseases to raise awareness among ophthalmologists who may encounter patients with these dermatological conditions in their clinical practice. Analyzing the original studies, the most common ocular manifestations include various types of inflammation, such as conjunctivitis and blepharitis. Additionally, more severe conditions, such as keratitis, uveitis, and meibomian gland dysfunction, are frequently observed. Ocular symptoms in pemphigus vulgaris and rosacea can precede dermatological signs. Dry eye disease is commonly seen across various dermatological conditions. Treatments like calcineurin inhibitors (used for atopic dermatitis and psoriasis) have shown efficacy for both dermatological and ocular symptoms. In atopic dermatitis, the use of dupilumab has been linked to increased rates of conjunctivitis, necessitating collaboration between dermatologists and ophthalmologists to distinguish drug side effects from disease manifestations. Psoriasis treatments, including phototherapy and biologics like secukinumab and ustekinumab, require careful monitoring for potential ocular effects, as their safety profiles are still being evaluated. For ocular rosacea, cyclosporine has demonstrated superior efficacy over doxycycline in managing symptoms such as burning and corneal involvement. This review underscores the importance of recognizing the interplay between dermatological and ocular health. Early diagnosis, interdisciplinary collaboration, and tailored treatments are essential for managing these complex conditions effectively.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".