Oral Propranolol Therapy for Infantile Hemangiomas Beyond the Proliferation Phase: A Multicenter Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pharmacological therapies for infantile hemangiomas were considered effective only during the proliferative phases. Recently reported beneficial effects of propranolol may extend beyond the proliferative phase of infantile hemangiomas. The purpose of the study was to assess the effect of oral propranolol therapy for infantile hemangiomas beyond the proliferative phase of these lesions. Members of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology were invited to participate in a multicenter retrospective study. Only children with infantile hemangiomas with documented cessation of lesions' growth or those older than 12 months of age were eligible for the study. Clinical and demographic information and digital photographs before, at the start, and following the treatment were collected. Scaled panels of photographs were distributed among preselected experienced pediatric dermatologists. Visual analog scale was used to assess photographs for each case. Paired t-test was used for statistical analyses. Data on 49 eligible patients from eight pediatric dermatology centers was collected. Seven cases were excluded because of insufficient photographic documentation. The age of the patients at the start of propranolol therapy ranged 7 to 120 months (mean 28 mos, median 22 mos). The duration of propranolol therapy ranged 1 to 8 months (mean 3.6 mos). The mean visual analog scale score before the treatment was 6.8 ± 2.15, and mean reduction in the visual analog scale score at the assessment was 2.6 ± 1.74 (p < 0.001). The rate of visual analog scale reduction was 0.4 per month before the start of the therapy, while this rate was accelerated to 0.9 per months following the therapy (p < 0.001). No significant side effects were reported. We conclude that propranolol is effective in infantile hemangiomas, including post-proliferative phase, and should be considered as the first-line therapy in that setting.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".