A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of topical tacrolimus 0·1% vs. clobetasol propionate 0·05% in childhood vitiligo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both clobetasol propionate 0·05% (CP 0·05%) and tacrolimus 0·1% (T 0·1%) ointments have been shown to be efficacious and safe in treating vitiligo in the paediatric population. OBJECTIVES: To assess efficacy and safety of these two therapies compared with each other and with placebo. METHODS: In this prospective study, children aged 2-16 years with vitiligo, stratified into 'facial' (n = 55) and 'nonfacial' (n = 45) groups, were randomized into three arms: CP 0·05% ointment (n = 30), T 0·1% ointment (n = 31) and placebo (n = 29) for 6 months. Successful repigmentation, defined as > 50% improvement, was evaluated by comparing photographs taken at baseline and at 2, 4 and 6 months. RESULTS: In the facial group, 58% of the CP 0·05% group responded successfully compared with 58% of the T 0·1% group, and in the nonfacial group, 39% of the CP 0·05% group responded compared with 23% of the T 0·1% group (P > 0·05). There was a significant difference in response between the CP 0·05% group vs. placebo (P < 0·0001) and the T 0·1% group vs. placebo (P = 0·0004). Spontaneous repigmentation was evaluated as 2·4%. No significant clinical adverse events were noted in any group. CONCLUSIONS: Both CP 0·05% and T 0·1% ointments offer similar benefit in paediatric vitiligo, both facial and nonfacial. The facial lesions responded faster than the nonfacial ones.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".