A Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Adverse Effects of Four Recognized Treatments of Molluscum Contagiosum in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Molluscum contagiosum is a common viral disease of childhood presenting as small, firm, dome-shaped umbilicated papules. Although benign and generally self-limited, this condition is contagious and can lead to complications such as inflammation, pruritus, dermatitis, bacterial superinfection, and scars. No consensus has been established concerning the management of this condition. We conducted a prospective randomized study comparing four common treatments for molluscum contagiosum in 124 children aged 1 to 18 years. One group was treated with curettage, a second with cantharidin, a third with a combination of salicylic acid and lactic acid, and a fourth with imiquimod. Patients needing, respectively, one, two, or three visits for treatment of their mollusca were: 80.6%, 16.1%, and 3.2% for curettage, 36.7%, 43.3%, and 20.0% for cantharidin, 53.6%, 46.4%, and 0% for salicylic acid and glycolic acid, and 55.2%, 41.4%, and 3.4% for imiquimod. The rate of side effects was 4.7% for group 1, 18.6% for group 2, 53.5% for group 3, and 23.3% for group 4. Curettage was found to be the most efficacious treatment and had the lowest rate of side effects. It must be performed with adequate anesthesia and is a time-consuming procedure. Cantharidin is a useful bloodless alternative particularly in the office setting, but has moderate complications due to blisters and necessitated more visits in our experience. The topical keratolytic used was too irritating for children. Topical imiquimod holds promise but the optimum treatment schedule has yet to be determined. Finally, we believe that the ideal treatment for mollusca depends on the individual patient preference, fear, and financial status, distance from the office, and whether they have dermatitis or blood-borne infections.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".