North American Efficacy and Safety of a Novel Pediculicide Rinse, Isopropyl Myristate 50% (Resultz)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Head lice infestations are a major nuisance in school-aged children and are a worldwide public health problem. There are growing concerns about the effectiveness of current treatments owing to increasing resistance, safety, and patient noncompliance. A safe, easy to use, effective alternative is needed. OBJECTIVE: A pediculicide rinse, 50% isopropyl myristate (IPM), was assessed in two phase 2 trials conducted in North America. The first trial was a nonrandomized (proof of concept) trial without a comparator conducted in Winnipeg, Canada. The second trial, conducted in the United States, was an evaluator-blinded, randomized superiority trial comparing 50% IPM rinse with a positive control (RID; pyrethrin 0.33%, piperonyl butoxide 4%). The primary end points were to determine the safety and efficacy of 50% IPM as a pediculicide rinse. METHODS: Subjects meeting inclusion criteria were enrolled in the above-mentioned trials with efficacy end points 7 and 14 days post-treatment. Subjects were also evaluated on days 0, 7, 14, and 21 for the presence of erythema and edema using the Modified Draize Scale. Other comments associated with the safety evaluation (ie, pruritus) were collected. RESULTS: IPM was found to be effective in the proof of concept study and comparator trial using a positive control. IPM was also well tolerated, with minimal adverse events. All adverse events were mild, resolving by completion of the study. CONCLUSION: Data suggest that IPM is a safe and effective therapy for the treatment of head lice in children and adults. IPM's mechanical mechanism of action makes development of lice resistance unlikely.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".