Isotretinoin Use in Acne: Prospective Evaluation of Adverse Events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Isotretinoin is an effective treatment for severe acne. Although the spectrum of side effects has been well documented, the changing incidence of such side effects over the course of treatment has not been studied in detail. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of our study was to examine a group of patients monthly over their course of treatment and prospectively document the side effects experienced. METHODS: Over the period between January 1991 and July 1996, 124 courses of treatment with isotretinoin for severe acne were followed. The patients were treated for 4 months at a dose of 1 mg per kg body weight. A questionnaire was administered monthly, inquiring specifically about side effects known to be associated with isotretinoin. Any additional side effects were also noted. RESULTS: The majority of patients experienced persistent dryness of lips. Dry eyes affected 40% of patients; this continued throughout treatment in 25%. Contact lens wearers were more likely to develop conjunctivitis. Lower back pain was reported early in about 30% of patients and fewer than 10% of patients would develop it later in the course of treatment. Arthralgia was noted in 16.5% of patients at the first visit and there was little change with ongoing treatment. Hair loss was experienced in a small percentage but was rarely noted on more than one occasion. Headaches occurred in less than 10% and were occasionally severe, but most often intermittent and recorded at a single visit. Depression occurred in 4% of patients and tended to persist throughout the treatment. All these patients completed the full course of treatment. CONCLUSION: This prospective analysis has shown that patients treated with isotretinoin experienced a predictable series of side effects. Some occurred fleetingly, but several persisted for the duration of treatment.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".