Propranolol Versus Corticosteroids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infantile hemangiomas (IHs) are common and benign vascular tumors and usually involute spontaneously. Nevertheless, in some cases, treatment with systemic corticosteroids or propranolol is required. No randomized controlled studies, in which both treatment options were compared, have been performed. METHODS: A systematic literature review and a retrospective cohort study in the Academic Medical Centre of 56 patients (mean age, 5.5 months; range, 0-40 months; SD, 7.6) with IHs were carried out. These patients were treated with either systemic corticosteroids or propranolol. The outcomes of both treatment options were evaluated and compared. RESULTS: The literature review showed that propranolol resulted in an involution in 100% of the patients, whereas corticosteroids only reached involution in 89%. The mean first response of the IH to propranolol was 3.2 days and of corticosteroids was 8.5 days. In our study sample, the patients treated with propranolol showed a faster and better response than the patients treated with corticosteroids. This is in line with literature findings. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic propranolol treatment is more effective for IHs than systemic corticosteroid treatment. Secondly, propranolol elicits a faster response than corticosteroids.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".