MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027249784 · doi:10.1016/s0020-7292(02)00034-6

Imiquimod 5% cream in the treatment of anogenital warts in female patients

2002· article· en· W2027249784 on OpenAlexaff
Henry W. Buck, Michel Fortier, J. Knudsen, Jorma Paavonen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImiquimodMedicineClearanceErythemaDermatologyPopulationSurgeryUrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of imiquimod 5% cream in the treatment of anogenital warts in a female population. METHODS: In two open-label studies, female patients with anogenital warts applied imiquimod 5% cream three times a week for up to 16 weeks. Patients who cleared their warts were monitored for a 6-month follow-up period. Patients could be re-treated with imiquimod 5% cream for up to an additional 16 weeks if their warts recurred or new warts developed during the follow-up period. The treatment period could also be extended for up to an additional 16 weeks if patients only experienced partial clearance during the initial 16-week treatment period. RESULTS: Of the female patients who applied imiquimod 5% cream, 75% (449/600) experienced complete clearance of their warts (treatment failure analysis). This includes 46 patients who experienced total clearance when they applied imiquimod for longer than 16 weeks as their warts had only partially cleared in the initial 16 weeks of therapy. During the 6 months of follow-up after the initial treatment period, 15% of patients had recurrent warts. Thirty-nine (75%) of those patients experienced total clearance again after they re-applied imiquimod for up to an additional 16 weeks. The most frequently observed local skin reaction was erythema. CONCLUSION: In these studies, imiquimod 5% cream was an effective and well-tolerated treatment for anogenital warts in females and continued to be safe and effective in the small proportion of patients who needed to re-apply imiquimod after wart recurrence.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations32
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecology & ObstetricsSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207