A Report on Three Recent Clinical Trials Using Mahonia aquifolium 10% Topical Cream and a Review of the Worldwide Clinical Experience With Mahonia aquifolium for the Treatment of Plaque Psoriasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This monograph summarizes 3 recent clinical trials and the worldwide clinical experience with Mahonia aquifolium in patients with psoriasis. Study 1 was an open-label study to evaluate the safety of Mahonia aquifolium in 39 patients treated for 12 weeks. Assessments made were modified PASI, global assessment, psoriasis history questionnaire, Dermatology Life Quality Index, and Psoriasis Disability Index. The results indicate statistically significant improvement in PASI score and Dermatology Life Quality Index after 4 weeks of treatment. This response continued 1 month after the end of treatment. Study 2 was a clinical trial of 32 patients with mild to moderate bilateral psoriasis treated up to 6 months. One side of the body received Mahonia and the other standard psoriatic treatment (eg, Dovonex cream). The primary outcomes were patient ratings of the Mahonia-treated side alone and the comparison between treatments received on each side of their body. Eighty-four percent of patients rated the Mahonia-treated psoriasis as good to excellent response. When compared with standard treatment, 63% of patients rated Mahonia aquifolium equal to or better than the standard psoriatic treatment. Study 3 was an observational study of 33 patients with mild to moderate bilateral psoriasis treated for 1 month. The results indicate improvement in psoriasis after 1 week of treatment. The side treated with Mahonia did as well or better than the side treated with the vehicle cream. Results from these 3 open-label clinical trials are in agreement with published data that include placebo-controlled studies. Taken together, these clinical studies conducted by several investigators in several countries indicate that Mahonia aquifolium is a safe and effective treatment of patients with mild to moderate psoriasis.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".