MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7101032034

Sports dermatology part 2: swimming and other aquatic sports DERMATOLOGY

2004· article· en· W7101032034 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLimitingMineral oilCosmeticsClothingSkin careSOAP
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

© 2004 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors Swimmer’s xerosis: Swimmer’s xerosis, or dry skin, is common among swimmers. Dilution and melting of the natural protective skin sebum leads to moisture loss from the stratum corneum, which results in a dry, scaly, itchy skin.1 Xerosis is exacerbated by the long hot showers that swimmers are notorious for taking, as well as by long soaks in Jacuzzis and hot tubs. Management: Xerosis can be prevented by limiting immediate post-swim showers to quick rinse-offs, preferably in lukewarm or cool water. Small quantities of a mild oil-based soap or soap substitute (e.g., Spectro Jel 609) are preferable to irritating shower-room soap solutions. An oil-based protective emollient should be applied immediately after thoroughly pat-drying oneself with a towel. Plain petroleum jelly or mineral oil can be used as an inexpensive and effective moisturizer, although less greasy creams are more appealing to most people. Topical steroid preparations are occasionally needed to treat ar-eas that develop eczema, with the strength of preparation varying depending on the affected body part and on the severity of the eczema. D

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.788

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2360.072

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→