Treatment of Infantile Hemangiomas with Propranolol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infantile hemangioma is a vascular tumor and requires treatment in lesions manifested by potentially dangerous symptoms. Several publications have reported that involution of infantile hemangioma could be accelerated by propranolol but have used only invalidated subjective measures of assessment. The authors aimed to objectively validate the aesthetic results after propranolol treatment for infantile hemangioma, and to produce a therapy protocol, including optimal timing for introduction, pretreatment preparation, dosage, frequency of visits, duration, and patient safety. METHODS: For the nonrandomized comparative cohort study, the authors enrolled 60 patients treated with propranolol. Medical two-dimensional photographs, taken before and after treatment, were subjectively analyzed by three plastic surgery consultants and objectively analyzed with a computer program. Aesthetic results were analyzed using the following parameters: subjective overall outcome, subjective color fading, and objective color fading. Reliability of subjective and objective methods was quantified and compared, as described with accuracy and repeatability. Volumetric parameters were obtained from three-dimensional scans taken before and after treatment and objectively analyzed with a computer program. Numerous patients' data were recorded from the medical notes. RESULTS: This study proved high efficiency of propranolol in treatment of infantile hemangioma, as assessed with the objective measures for the first time. The authors outlined an optimal treatment protocol, including introduction, dosage, duration, and cessation of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Propranolol is an effective, well-tolerated, and safe first-line treatment for proliferative hemangioma. Therapy should begin early, continue with the target dosage of 2 mg/kg/day in three divided doses through the proliferative phase of infantile hemangioma, and be stopped gradually. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".