Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 29 references

LLM4Sweat: A Trustworthy Large Language Model for Hyperhidrosis Support

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Fine-tuning on synthetic vignettes takes small open-source LLMs from 0.425 to 0.875 overall accuracy on hyperhidrosis support.

desk verdict The paper's central claim is voided by train/test leakage: synthetic training vignettes are explicitly generated from the test set, so the 0.925 accuracies can't be read as generalization. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.15192 v1 pith:NY4FN4BN submitted 2025-08-21 cs.AI cs.CL

Wenjie Lin , Jin Wei-Kocsis This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.CL
keywords hyperhidrosislargelanguagemodelssyntheticdataaugmentationrarediseasefine-tuningexpert-in-the-loopevaluationclinicalNLPlow-resourcemedicalAI
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

LLM4Sweat tries to show that data scarcity for rare diseases can be bypassed by having a frontier LLM generate synthetic training vignettes from sparse curated sources. The paper fine-tunes two small open-source models (1B and 3B) on those vignettes plus expert-validated outputs, and reports accuracy gains from 0.425 to 0.875 (1B) and from 0.588 to 0.900 (3B) on an 80-question hyperhidrosis benchmark. Diagnosis reaches 0.925 for the 1B model and treatment reaches 0.925 for the 3B model, with F1 scores above 0.85. If the result holds on genuinely unseen data, it would give a transferable blueprint for building trustworthy LLM assistants for other rare conditions where real data are too sparse to fine-tune general models.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the three-stage closed loop: (1) data augmentation by a frontier LLM that converts sparse curated open-source material into balanced synthetic question-answer vignettes; (2) LoRA-based supervised fine-tuning of an open-source base model on those vignettes; (3) expert-in-the-loop inference, where specialist validation of model outputs produces additional curated pairs that are fed back into the training data. The repeated feedback of validated responses is what separates the framework from a one-shot synthetic-data fine-tune and yields the incremental accuracy gains in the ablation.

What would settle it

Build a held-out set of 80 hyperhidrosis multiple-choice questions written by dermatologists after the synthetic vignettes were generated, with no overlap in wording, and rerun the fine-tuned models. If accuracy on those fresh questions falls far below 0.875-0.900 while accuracy on the current test set stays high, the reported gains come from training on cases derived from the test set, not from learned domain reasoning.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that a small, open-source language model can be made clinically useful for a rare condition without large real-world datasets. The reported mechanism is a closed loop: a frontier LLM turns curated open-source material into 180 balanced synthetic vignettes; the base model is fine-tuned on them; at inference, evaluated responses from specialists are fed back into the training pool. Measured on an 80-question multiple-choice benchmark built from clinician-facing sources, this lifts the 1B model from 0.425 to 0.875 overall accuracy and the 3B model from 0.588 to 0.900, with best per-task accuracy of 0.925 in diagnosis (1B) and 0.925 in treatment (3B). The

Load-bearing premise

The reported gains depend on the synthetic training cases not being near-copies of the test questions; since they were generated from the test set, any overlap would inflate accuracy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If accurate, the same pipeline could be pointed at any rare disease with a small amount of trustworthy source material and produce a deployable assistant without expensive data collection.
  • The 1B/3B size of the fine-tuned models means the system could run on modest hardware, making clinic- or patient-facing deployment feasible in resource-constrained settings.
  • The combination of synthetic augmentation and expert-in-the-loop refinement suggests a way to keep improving accuracy after deployment, since real validated interactions continuously enrich the training set.
  • The consistent gains across two model sizes make the improvement attributable to the framework rather than to a lucky choice of base model.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A reader should treat the 0.875-0.900 accuracy figures as upper-bound estimates until the models are evaluated on a held-out set written independently of the synthetic training vignettes; the paper states the synthetic vignettes were generated from the real testing dataset, and that overlap is the main uncontrolled risk.
  • Because this experiment used a frontier LLM to stand in for clinical specialists, the reported expert-evaluation gain may partly reflect the generator's own consistency. Real clinician review could either strengthen or weaken that increment.
  • A natural extension would be to run the same pipeline on another rare dermatological condition with public clinical guidelines, using a fresh human-authored test set to separate the data-augmentation effect from test-set leakage.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LLM4Sweat, a three-stage pipeline for adapting small open-source LLMs (Llama-3.2-1B/3B) to hyperhidrosis diagnosis, treatment recommendation, and psychological support. Stage 1 uses a frontier LLM to generate synthetic vignettes from curated open-source data; Stage 2 fine-tunes the base model on those vignettes; Stage 3 adds an 'expert-in-the-loop' step in which outputs are reviewed and validated responses are fed back for further fine-tuning. The authors report that LLM4Sweat substantially outperforms unadapted baselines, with 1B and 3B models reaching 0.925 accuracy in diagnosis and treatment respectively, and claim the framework is transferable to other rare diseases. The central empirical claim, however, is compromised by a direct train/test overlap: the synthetic training vignettes are explicitly generated 'based on the real testing dataset,' and the 'expert' validation is performed by the same frontier LLM rather than by human specialists.

Significance. If the reported results were valid, the paper would offer a useful blueprint for adapting small LLMs to rare medical domains with scarce data, and the emphasis on integrated diagnosis, treatment, and psychological support is sensible. The ablation structure (with/without expert evaluation) is a reasonable design. However, the empirical contribution is not established. The training data are generated from the test data, and the 'expert' feedback is simulated by an LLM using the same test-derived queries. Consequently, the accuracy numbers in Table 1 cannot be interpreted as evidence of generalization, and the claimed trustworthiness is not supported by human evaluation. The paper also does not provide code, data, or a repository despite describing the framework as open-source. The domain motivation and problem framing are timely, but the central claims require clean, independent evaluation before the results can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Experiments, Datasets (Synthetic training dataset); Eq. (1)-(3)] D_real is defined in Eq. (1) as the testing dataset, and the synthetic training set is described as '180 synthetic vignettes ... using a frontier LLM (GPT-5) based on the real testing dataset.' Since Eq. (3) trains on D_syn and Table 1 evaluates on D_real, the fine-tuned model is trained on a distribution explicitly derived from the test distribution. This is train/test contamination, not augmentation from independent open-source data. The reported accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 values in Table 1 are therefore inflated and cannot support the central claim that LLM4Sweat 'substantially outperforms baseline models.'
  2. [Inference and Expert Evaluation Stage; Path to Deployment] The expert-in-the-loop component is not human expert evaluation. The manuscript states 'In this work, it is done by the frontier LLM' and 'we used the state-of-the-art LLM to represent specialists for practice.' The 40 'validated responses' added to the training set are generated from the same test queries. The ablation comparing models with and without expert evaluation therefore measures additional fine-tuning on test-derived outputs, not the effect of genuine expert validation. This invalidates the claimed trustworthiness and the conclusion that 'expert-in-the-loop refinement provides the final layer of trustworthiness.'
  3. [Experiments, Hyperparameter Settings and Results] The evaluation uses only 80 multiple-choice questions (40 per task), with no separate validation set. Hyperparameters (learning rate from {5e-6, 5e-5, 2e-4, 1e-3}; epochs from {1,3,5}) are tuned on the same test set, and no confidence intervals or significance tests are reported. Given the small test size, a change of a few questions moves accuracy by 0.025, so the presented differences (e.g., 0.825 vs 0.925) are not shown to be reliable. A clean held-out test set that is independent of all training and validation decisions is required to underwrite the performance claims.
  4. [Discussions and Limitations; Conclusions] The limitations section acknowledges the small 80-question test set and the need for future human evaluation, but it does not acknowledge the core circularity that the synthetic training set is generated from the test set. Consequently, the abstract and conclusions overclaim: the paper states it 'delivers the first open-source LLM framework for hyperhidrosis' and offers 'a generalizable approach for other rare diseases,' but no independent evidence of generalization is presented.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Methodology, Eq. (2)] Typo: 'vigenette' should be 'vignette'.
  2. [Figure 2] Figure 2 is dense and contains in-panel example prompts and answers that distract from the workflow; the caption should clearly state that the 'expertise enrichment' is simulated by the frontier LLM in this work, not by human specialists.
  3. [Table 1] The rows labeled 'w/o Expert Eval' are essentially ablation conditions; the caption should clarify that these are fine-tuned on the synthetic set only, while the 'LLM4Sweat' rows include additional test-derived validated responses.
  4. [General] The paper claims to present an 'open-source' framework but does not provide a repository, dataset, or model weights. Adding a link or clear availability statement would be necessary for reproducibility.
  5. [Related Work] Some references (e.g., Barr et al. 2025, Zhao et al. 2025) are cited with incomplete bibliographic information; please supply full venue and identifiers.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Synthetic training set is generated 'based on the real testing dataset' and the 'expert' is the same frontier LLM, so the reported gains are forced by construction.

  1. self definitional [Experiments, Datasets, 'Synthetic training dataset'; cf. Methodology Data Augmentation, Eq. (1)-(2)]
    "To address data scarcity, we generated 180 synthetic vignettes (90 diagnosis, 90 treatment) using a frontier LLM (GPT-5) based on the real testing dataset. All generated cases were prompted and filtered for medical plausibility. This synthetic training dataset is for fine-tuning the open-source base LLMs before the inference and expert evaluation stage."

    The testing dataset D_real is explicitly 'for testing the fine-tuned models' (Methodology), and the synthetic training set D_syn is generated 'based on the real testing dataset.' Thus the model is fine-tuned on paraphrases/variants of the exact test questions and then evaluated on those same questions. The reported accuracies (e.g., 0.925 diagnosis) measure fit to the test distribution, not generalization to unseen hyperhidrosis queries. By construction D_syn is not independent of D_real, so the central empirical claim reduces to train/test leakage.

  2. other [Experiments, 'Dynamic training dataset with validated clinical data'; Path to Deployment]
    "In this experiment, we used the state-of-the-art LLM to represent specialists for practice. This process created a dynamic training corpus that improved alignment with clinical expertise and further fine-tuned the base model."

    The 'specialists' are a frontier LLM of the same kind (GPT-5) that produced D_syn, and their validated responses are fed back into D_syn for further fine-tuning. The ablation that credits 'expert evaluation' with improvements (e.g., 1B treatment 0.725 -> 0.825) therefore compares training on LLM-generated data vs. training on more LLM-generated data, not independent expert validation. The Path to Deployment confirms: 'In this work, it is done by the frontier LLM.' This makes the trustworthiness/expert loop self-referential rather than an external check.

full rationale

The paper's headline claim—that LLM4Sweat substantially outperforms baselines—rests on an evaluation whose training distribution is explicitly derived from the test distribution. The authors state that D_syn was generated 'based on the real testing dataset,' while D_real is the benchmark used to test the fine-tuned models. This is direct train/test contamination: every fine-tuned row in Table 1 (with and without expert eval) has been trained on content generated from the evaluation questions, so the accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 gains are forced by construction and cannot be interpreted as evidence of generalization to unseen hyperhidrosis queries. The baseline rows (0.425 and 0.588 overall) are the only uncontaminated numbers, but they are not the paper's central claim. The expert-in-the-loop ablation is likewise weakened because, as the paper admits, the 'specialists' were represented by a frontier LLM—the same kind of model that generated the synthetic data—and their outputs were added back into D_syn. This creates a closed loop of generation, validation, and re-training that does not provide independent clinical validation. The Limitations section acknowledges the small 80-question benchmark but does not flag the more serious issue that the training set was synthesized from that same benchmark. Other components (open-source data curation, LoRA fine-tuning settings, and the framework design) are not circular, and the paper does not rely on load-bearing self-citation. However, because the central reported improvement reduces by definition to fitting the test distribution, the circularity score is 8.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The framework rests on several domain assumptions and an LLM-simulated expert. The most significant issue is that the synthetic training set is generated from the test set, making the reported performance non-independent. Hyperparameters are tuned without a disclosed validation set, and the 'expert' is not human.

free parameters (5)
  • learning_rate
    Tuned over {5e-6, 5e-5, 2e-4, 1e-3}; final values not reported, no validation split described, so selection may have used the test set.
  • training_epochs
    Tuned over {1, 3, 5}; final values not reported, no separate validation set mentioned.
  • synthetic_vignette_count = 180
    90 diagnosis and 90 treatment vignettes, chosen by hand to balance tasks; no stated principled basis.
  • expert_validated_response_count = 40
    20 diagnosis and 20 treatment validated responses added after one inference-evaluation cycle; arbitrary number.
  • inference_temperature_top_p = 0.7 and 0.9
    Fixed temperature 0.7 and top-p 0.9 across all models; not reported as tuned.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Multiple-choice question accuracy is a valid proxy for trustworthy diagnosis and treatment support in hyperhidrosis.
    The test set is 80 MCQs; the paper never evaluates open-ended patient interactions, counseling, or clinical outcomes. The abstract's claim of 'empathetic psychological support' is not measured.
  • ad hoc to paper Synthetic vignettes generated by GPT-5 from the test set are medically plausible and representative of real patient queries.
    The paper says the vignettes were 'prompted and filtered for medical plausibility' but provides no details of the filtering or any independent clinical verification.
  • ad hoc to paper A state-of-the-art LLM can represent clinical and psychological specialists for validating outputs.
    The experiment uses 'the state-of-the-art LLM to represent specialists for practice', contradicting the abstract's assertion that human specialists assess outputs.
  • domain assumption The open-source test questions from IHHS, NHS, Mayo Clinic, DermNet, and MedlinePlus are correct and unbiased ground truth.
    No clinician verification of the curated test set is described; the sources are consumer-facing and may not reflect specialist diagnostic reasoning.
invented entities (1)
  • LLM-simulated clinical and psychological specialist
    purpose: Acts as the expert evaluating model outputs and producing validated responses for fine-tuning in the inference and expert evaluation stage.
    The paper states 'we used the state-of-the-art LLM to represent specialists for practice'. No comparison with human expert judgments is provided, so the simulated specialist is an unvalidated stand-in.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LLM4Sweat: A Trustworthy Large Language Model for Hyperhidrosis Support." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NY4FN4BN

@misc{pith2026250815192,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LLM4Sweat: A Trustworthy Large Language Model for Hyperhidrosis Support},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NY4FN4BN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.15192}
}
read the original abstract

While large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in healthcare, their application for rare medical conditions is still hindered by scarce and unreliable datasets for fine-tuning. Hyperhidrosis, a disorder causing excessive sweating beyond physiological needs, is one such rare disorder, affecting 2-3% of the population and significantly impacting both physical comfort and psychosocial well-being. To date, no work has tailored LLMs to advance the diagnosis or care of hyperhidrosis. To address this gap, we present LLM4Sweat, an open-source and domain-specific LLM framework for trustworthy and empathetic hyperhidrosis support. The system follows a three-stage pipeline. In the data augmentation stage, a frontier LLM generates medically plausible synthetic vignettes from curated open-source data to create a diverse and balanced question-answer dataset. In the fine-tuning stage, an open-source foundation model is fine-tuned on the dataset to provide diagnosis, personalized treatment recommendations, and empathetic psychological support. In the inference and expert evaluation stage, clinical and psychological specialists assess accuracy, appropriateness, and empathy, with validated responses iteratively enriching the dataset. Experiments show that LLM4Sweat outperforms baselines and delivers the first open-source LLM framework for hyperhidrosis, offering a generalizable approach for other rare diseases with similar data and trustworthiness challenges.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.15192 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of our proposed LLM4Sweat framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A demonstration of LLM4Sweat workflow. dataset. In this experiment, we used the state-of-the-art LLM to represent specialists for practice. This process created a dynamic training corpus that improved alignment with clin￾ical expertise and further fine-tuned the base model. For one cycle inference and expert evaluation, we got 40 outputs and corresponding 40 validated responses (20 for diagnosis and 20 for treatment… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Alanezi, F. 2024. Assessing the effectiveness of ChatGPT in delivering mental health support: a qualitative study. Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 461--471

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    A.; Quan, J.; Guo, E.; and Sezgin, E

    Barr, A. A.; Quan, J.; Guo, E.; and Sezgin, E. 2025. Large language models generating synthetic clinical datasets: a feasibility and comparative analysis with real-world perioperative data. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 8: 1533508

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Bellapukonda, P.; Mohan, R. N. V. J.; and Sahu, B. 2023. Predicting Sweat Levels to Detect Hyperhidrosis: A Logistic Regression Approach. In 2023 14th International Conference on Computing, Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT), 1--8. IEEE

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    P.; Gomes, D

    Camargo, F. P.; Gomes, D. R.; Alves, L. R.; and Corr \^e a, C. E. 2024. Development of polymer insole in additive manufacturing for people with plantar hyperhidrosis. Disciplinarum Scientia. S \'e rie: Naturais e Tecnol \'o gicas , 25(2): 15--26

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    DermNet . 2025. Hyperhidrosis. https://dermnetnz.org/topics/hyperhidrosis/. Accessed: 2025-08

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    A.; Yao, W.; Schukat, M.; Little, M

    Farooq, M. A.; Yao, W.; Schukat, M.; Little, M. A.; and Corcoran, P. 2024. Derm-t2im: Harnessing synthetic skin lesion data via stable diffusion models for enhanced skin disease classification using vit and cnn. In 2024 46th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 1--5. IEEE

    work page 2024

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Gregoriou, S.; Sidiropoulou, P.; Kontochristopoulos, G.; and Rigopoulos, D. 2019. Management strategies of palmar hyperhidrosis: challenges and solutions. Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology, 733--744

    2019

  2. [10]

    Henning, M.; Pedersen, O.; and Jemec, G. 2019. Genetic disposition to primary hyperhidrosis: a review of literature. Archives of dermatological research, 311(10): 735--740

    2019

  3. [11]

    A.; Thorlacius, L.; Ibler, K

    Henning, M. A.; Thorlacius, L.; Ibler, K. S.; and Jemec, G. B. 2021. How to diagnose and measure primary hyperhidrosis: a systematic review of the literature. Clinical Autonomic Research, 31(4): 511--528

    2021

  4. [12]

    H.; Lupin, M.; and O'Shaughnessy, K

    Hong, C.-H. H.; Lupin, M.; and O'Shaughnessy, K. F. 2012. Clinical evaluation of a microwave device for treating axillary hyperhidrosis. Dermatologic Surgery, 38(5): 728--735

    2012

  5. [13]

    Y.; Kim, J

    Hyun, K. Y.; Kim, J. J.; Im, K. S.; Lee, B. S.; and Kim, Y. J. 2023. Machine learning analysis of primary hyperhidrosis for classification of hyperhidrosis type and prediction of compensatory hyperhidrosis. Journal of Thoracic Disease, 15(9): 4808--4817

    2023

  6. [14]

    International Hyperhidrosis Society . 2025. Hyperhidrosis. https://www.sweathelp.org/. Accessed: 2025-08

    2025

  7. [15]

    Kazeminia, S.; Baur, C.; Kuijper, A.; van Ginneken, B.; Navab, N.; Albarqouni, S.; and Mukhopadhyay, A. 2020. GANs for medical image analysis. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 109: 101938

    2020

  8. [16]

    Lin, W.; and Fang, Y. 2022. Primary Hyperhidrosis: A Systematic Review of Current Status and Potential Interventions. In 2022 6th International Conference on Universal Village (UV), 1--8. IEEE

    2022

  9. [17]

    J.; Estors-Guerrero, M.; Galbis-Caravajal, J

    Mart \' nez-Hern \'a ndez, N. J.; Estors-Guerrero, M.; Galbis-Caravajal, J. M.; Herv \'a s-Mar \' n, D.; and Roig-Bataller, A. 2024. Endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy for primary hyperhidrosis: an over a decade-long follow-up on efficacy, impact, and patient satisfaction. Jour...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Mayo Clinic . 2025 a . Hyperhidrosis Diagnosis and Treatment. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hyperhidrosis/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20367173/. Accessed: 2025-08

    2025

  11. [19]

    Mayo Clinic . 2025 b . Hyperhidrosis Overview. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hyperhidrosis/symptoms-causes/syc-20367152/. Accessed: 2025-08

    2025

  12. [20]

    MedlinePlus . 2025. Hyperhidrosis. https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/007259.htm#: :text=Hyperhidrosis Accessed: 2025-08

    2025

  13. [21]

    National Health Service . 2025. Hyperhidrosis. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/excessive-sweating-hyperhidrosis/. Accessed: 2025-08

    2025

  14. [22]

    Parashar, K.; Adlam, T.; and Potts, G. 2023. The impact of hyperhidrosis on quality of life: a review of the literature. American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, 24(2): 187--198

    2023

  15. [23]

    E.; PourNejatian, N.; Costa, A

    Peng, C.; Yang, X.; Chen, A.; Smith, K. E.; PourNejatian, N.; Costa, A. B.; Martin, C.; Flores, M. G.; Zhang, Y.; Magoc, T.; et al. 2023. A study of generative large language model for medical research and healthcare. NPJ digital medicine, 6(1): 210

    2023

  16. [24]

    Qiu, H.; and Lan, Z. 2024. Interactive agents: Simulating counselor-client psychological counseling via role-playing llm-to-llm interactions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15787

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    F.; and Reza, M

    Sakhawat, R.; Islam, M. F.; and Reza, M. T. 2024. Design of a rectangular patch antenna-based electrolyte sensor for palmar hyperhidrosis patients. In 2024 27th International Conference on Computer and Information Technology (ICCIT), 3343--3347. IEEE

    2024

  18. [26]

    Singhal, K.; et al. 2023. Large language models encode clinical knowledge. Nature, 620: 172--180

    2023

  19. [27]

    Solish, N.; Benohanian, A.; and Kowalski, J. W. 2007. Impact of hyperhidrosis on quality of life and its assessment. Dermatologic Clinics, 25(4): 447--458

    2007

  20. [28]

    R.; Kowalski, J

    Strutton, D. R.; Kowalski, J. W.; Glaser, D. A.; and Stang, P. E. 2004. US prevalence of hyperhidrosis and impact on individuals with axillary hyperhidrosis: results from a national survey. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 51(2): 241--248

    2004

  21. [29]

    Zhao, L.; Bai, J.; Bian, Z.; Chen, Q.; Li, Y.; Li, G.; He, M.; Yao, H.; and Zhang, Z. 2025. Autonomous Multi-Modal LLM Agents for Treatment Planning in Focused Ultrasound Ablation Surgery. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.21418

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.