MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052991956 · doi:10.1097/prs.0b013e3181ef816d

Treatment of Male Pattern Baldness with Botulinum Toxin: A Pilot Study

2010· article· en· W2052991956 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brian Freund, Marvin Schwartz

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHair Growth and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineScalpHair lossFinasterideBotulinum toxinGlabellaAdverse effectMale-pattern baldnessDihydrotestosteroneInternal medicineForeheadDermatologySurgeryAndrogen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sir: We would like to present the results of an open-label pilot study using botulinum toxin type A (Botox; Allergan, Inc., Irvine, Calif.) for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia. This form of alopecia is believed to be caused by a genetically predisposed sensitivity of hair follicles to the toxic effects of dihydrotestosterone, a metabolite of testosterone. Medical treatment of androgenetic alopecia has previously only been moderately effective using systemic drugs such as finasteride, a 5α-reductase inhibitor.1 In this ethically approved study, 50 male subjects aged between 19 and 57 years with Norwood/Hamilton ratings of II to IV participated.2 The study was 60 weeks in duration, with 12 weeks of run-in followed by two treatment cycles of 24 weeks each. Subjects were injected with 150 units of Botox (5 units per 0.1 ml saline) into the muscles surrounding the scalp, including frontalis, temporalis, periauricular, and occipitalis muscles in equally divided doses over 30 injection sites. The primary outcome measure was a change in hair count in a fixed 2-cm area using a method described by Canfield.3 Secondary outcome measures included hair loss, measured by having subjects collect loose hair from their pillow with a sticky lint roller, and subjective efficacy using a validated questionnaire. Statistical analysis entailed paired t tests of group means. Forty subjects completed the study, and no adverse effects were reported. The treatment response rate was 75 percent. Mean hair counts for the entire group showed a statistically significant (p < 0.0001) increase of 18 percent between baseline and week 48 (Table 1), similar to the results reported with Propecia (Merck, Whitehouse Station, N.J.).1 Hair regrowth was objectively visible in some subjects (Fig. 1). Secondary outcome measures were also significantly improved. The reduction in hair loss and increase in hair count did not show a statistically significant correlation. This suggested that longer retention of terminal hairs did not account for the increase in hair count.Table 1: Summary of Mean Study DataFig. 1.: Pretreatment and posttreatment photographs of subjects with androgenetic alopecia responsive to Botox therapy.Mechanistically, the scalp behaves like a drum skin with tensioning muscles around the periphery. These muscle groups—the frontalis, occipitalis, and periauricular muscles and to a minor degree the temporalis—can create a “tight” scalp when chronically active. Because the blood supply to the scalp enters through the periphery, a reduction in blood flow would be most apparent at the distal ends of the vessels, specifically, the vertex and frontal peaks. Areas of the scalp with sparse hair growth have been shown to be relatively hypoxic, have slow capillary refill, and to have high levels of dihydrotestosterone.4 Conceptually, Botox “loosens” the scalp, reducing pressure on the perforating vasculature, thereby increasing blood flow and oxygen concentration. The enzymatic conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone is oxygen dependent. In low-oxygen environments, the conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone is favored; whereas in high-oxygen environments, more testosterone is converted to estradiol.4 Blood flow may therefore be a primary determinant in follicular health. Strategically placed Botox injections appear able to indirectly modify this variable, resulting in reduced hair loss and new hair growth in some men with androgenetic alopecia. DISCLOSURE The investigators have received support in the form of unrestricted educational grants from Allergan Inc. (Irvine, Calif.) within the past 5 years. The authors hold intellectual property rights related to the process described in this study in both the United States and the European Union. This study was not supported by any commercial entity or government agency. Brian J. Freund, D.D.S., M.D. Marvin Schwartz, D.D.S., M.Sc. Crown Institute Pickering, Ontario, Canada

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations61
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicHair Growth and DisordersFrench-language works237,207