The effect of eflornithine 13.9% cream on the bother and discomfort due to hirsutism*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although unwanted facial hair often leads to anxiety and avoidance of social situations, evaluation of treatment outcomes in clinical trials has relied largely on measures external to the patient such as the extent of hair growth or an expert physician's assessment, neglecting to include patient reported outcomes (PRO). To assess the level of bother caused by a dermatological condition (hirsutism) and changes brought on by treatment, the instrument ESTEEM was developed by expanding the Bother Assessment in Skin Conditions (BASC) scale to six questions to cover the discomfort felt in four social situations and bother due to removing facial hair. Each question elicits responses on a visual analog scale. Women participating in two randomized clinical trials evaluated a new treatment (eflornithine 13.9% cream). Analyses examined the level of bother at each visit, the changes with treatment, the correlations with the Physician's Global Assessment, and the effect size. Hirsutism bothers patients considerably. The mean for overall bother was 89% and the mean discomfort in social situations exceeded 80% in nearly all cases. Treatment led to significant reductions in bother on all six items with effect sizes ranging from 0.46 to 1.62. Eflornithine is an effective treatment for unwanted facial hair in women, as reported by the patients. ESTEEM addresses the specific concerns of women with hirsutism.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".