MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408362670 · doi:10.1177/12034754251320645

Patient Eczema Education Pictorial Study (PEEPS): A Pilot Investigation

2025· article· en· W4408362670 on OpenAlexafffund
B. Wilken, Sonja Molin, Thomas Herzinger, Robert Bobotsis, Anne K. Ellis, Yuka Asai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoQueen's University
FundersEczema Society of Canada
KeywordsMedicineDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: For optimal control of atopic dermatitis (AD), patient education is essential to complement traditional therapy. Patient education has proven to benefit AD outcomes, but previous methods of delivery are costly and time-consuming. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of a one-page pictorial education tool at improving AD quality of life (QoL) and disease severity. METHODS: Patients with AD and caregivers (if patient <18 years) received education with a pictorial education tool. QoL and disease severity were measured at baseline and in follow-up 2 to 6 months after education. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients and caregivers from speciality clinics in dermatology and allergy received education. At follow-up, there were significant decreases in QoL scores and median disease severity scores. CONCLUSIONS: A pictorial education tool for AD is associated with significant benefits for patients and caregivers after 2 to 6 months. This tool may be valuable for health care providers who are in need of an effective and efficient method of AD education; however, further studies are needed to address identified knowledge gaps and expand to other sites and non-specialist clinics.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery→Same topicDermatology and Skin Diseases→French-language works237,207→