MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999813924 · doi:10.1007/s10227-002-0121-6

Safety of Topical Minoxidil Solution: A One-Year, Prospective, Observational Study

2003· article· en· W1999813924 on OpenAlexaff
Jerry Shapiro

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHair Growth and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyAdverse effectMinoxidilProspective cohort studyPregnancySafety profileClinical trialInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Topical minoxidil solution (TMS) is widely used for androgenetic alopecia (AGA), and this is the first report of a large safety trial. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety profile of TMS by comparing hospitalization and death rates among subjects using TMS with controls. Cardiovascular safety and pregnancy outcomes were evaluated, and usage patterns were described. METHODS: All subjects were followed at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Usage patterns, pregnancy status, overnight hospital stays, and cardiovascular risk factors were evaluated. Subjects rated effectiveness of TMS in the treatment of AGA. Statistical analyses were conducted to determine if TMS was associated with an increased risk of death or hospitalization. RESULTS: TMS is a safe and effective treatment for AGA. There were no increases in cardiovascular events and no apparent increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This large, prospective study demonstrated the overall safety of TMS in the treatment of AGA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and SurgerySame topicHair Growth and DisordersFrench-language works237,207