Assessment of vitiligo in clinical practice: a cross-sectional survey among experts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The assessment of patient-centered outcomes in clinical practice is essential for optimal care. While a core domain set (CDS) for vitiligo clinical trials was established in 2015 (CDS for trials) to standardize outcomes, no CDS currently exists for clinical practice, resulting in inconsistent assessment complicating effective disease management. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate outcomes and characteristics currently assessed by vitiligo experts in clinical practice and represents one of the steps toward developing a core outcome set (COS) including outcomes and outcome measurement instruments for clinical practice. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 31 vitiligo experts from six continents. The survey consisted of 28 predefined outcomes and characteristics. Participants were given the opportunity to propose additional options, which were considered 'generally assessed' when assessed by ≥ 70%. RESULTS: Six outcomes and 21 characteristics were 'generally assessed'. The most frequently chosen outcomes included vitiligo evolution, tolerability of treatment/adverse events, followed by disease activity and vitiligo extent. CONCLUSION: This study shows similarities but also remarkable differences in assessed outcomes compared to the CDS for clinical trials. These results serve as a preparatory step toward developing a COS for clinical practice with the involvement of expert and non-expert dermatologists and patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".