A Phase II, Open‐Label Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Imiquimod in the Treatment of Superficial and Mixed Infantile Hemangioma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore the efficacy and safety of imiquimod 5% cream as a treatment for infantile hemangioma. DESIGN: Phase II, open-label, noncomparative study of imiquimod applied during 16 weeks, with posttherapy follow-up 16 weeks later (8 months total). SETTING: Outpatient pediatric tertiary care referral center in Quebec, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Healthy infants up to 8.8 months of age with previously untreated, nonulcerated, proliferative superficial or mixed infantile hemangioma, excluding periorbital, or perineal localization, > or =100 cm2 in size. INTERVENTION: Topical imiquimod applied three to seven times per week for 16 weeks to infantile hemangioma. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Lesion area, volume, depth (Doppler ultrasound), and color (erythema), serum drug, and interferon-alpha levels. RESULTS: Sixteen infants (11 girls, 5 boys) with a mean age at entry of 4.1 months and mean lesion area of 32.89 cm2, and volume of 39.98 cm3 were enrolled. Two participants discontinued treatment early, one for an adverse event (crying upon application), the other because of the lack of compliance. Local skin reactions were consistent with those reported in adults. Two cases had a decrease and three had an increase in lesion parameters; otherwise no meaningful changes in lesion area, volume, or depth were observed. At the 4-month posttreatment visit, 11 of 14 subjects had improvement in erythema (marginal homogeneity test = 2.668, p = 0.008). Measured serum drug and interferon-alpha levels were low or undetectable. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of infants with infantile hemangioma with imiquimod up to seven times per week for 16 weeks was generally well tolerated with low systemic exposure. Improvement was observed in hemangioma coloration, but not lesion size, suggesting effects were limited to the superficial component.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".