Randomized trial comparing a chemical peel containing a lipophilic hydroxy acid derivative of salicylic acid with a salicylic acid peel in subjects with comedonal acne
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lipohydroxyacid is a lipophilic derivative of salicylic acid with comedolytic properties. OBJECTIVES: To compare lipohydroxyacid and salicylic acid peels in subjects with comedonal acne. METHODS: In this split face, randomized study, 20 subjects with comedonal acne received lipohydroxyacid peels on one side of the face, while the other side was treated with salicylic acid peels. A total of six peels at 2-week intervals were performed. Efficacy was evaluated by counting noninflammatory and inflammatory lesions and by performing a global change in acne assessment. Safety was assessed by evaluating adverse events, global tolerance, and the presence of erythema, scaling, and dryness. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant decrease of 55.6% and 48.5% from baseline to Day 98 in the mean number of noninflammatory lesions for the sides treated with lipohydroxyacid and salicylic acid peels, respectively (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the degree of reduction in noninflammatory lesions between the two peels. There was no significant reduction in the number of inflammatory lesions. Both peels were generally very well tolerated. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that lipohydroxyacid peels can be beneficial to subjects with comedonal acne.
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.
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) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it