Original Contribution: Hyperandrogenism does not predispose patients to photoepilatory treatment failure: a single‐center review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies have suggested that patients with PCOS tend to be more treatment resistant to light-mediated depilation compared with their non-PCOS counterparts. We conducted a retrospective assessment of 29 hirsute patients treated between January 2006 and February 2007 to assess whether those with unsatisfactory hair clearance after treatment with intense pulsed light (IPL) were predominantly hyperandrogenic. The number of IPL sessions was also recorded for those patients failing to improve on treatment. Seventy-six percent had satisfactory hair clearance where hyperandrogenic patients dominated. All patients required an average of six treatments before discharge. Eighty-eight percent of poor responders were normoandrogenic. Our hyperandrogenic cohort appeared more responsive to IPL than the normoandrogenic patients. From our observations, the presence of hyperandrogenism does not indicate treatment resistance. This standpoint is unique and warrants a randomized trial directly comparing the two groups to investigate whether a positive or negative relationship actually exists.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".