Prospective, Randomized, Open-Label Trial Comparing the Safety, Efficacy, and Tolerability of an Acne Treatment Regimen with and without a Probiotic Supplement and Minocycline in Subjects with Mild to Moderate Acne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Systemic antibiotics are an effective treatment for acne vulgaris. However, intolerable side effects may invariably occur. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether probiotics reduce the side effects imparted by systemic antibiotics while working synergistically with the latter in treating inflammatory acne. METHODS: Forty-five 18- to 35-year-old females were randomly assigned to one of three arms in this prospective, open-label study. Group A received probiotic supplementation, whereas group B received only minocycline. Group C was treated with both probiotic and minocycline. Clinical and subjective assessments were completed at baseline and during the 2-, 4-, 8-, and 12-week follow-up visits. RESULTS: All patients demonstrated a significant improvement in total lesion count 4 weeks after treatment initiation (p < .001), with continued improvement seen with each subsequent follow-up visit (p < .01). At the 8- and 12-week follow-up visits, group C had a significant decrease in total lesion count versus groups A (p < .001) and B (p < .01). Two patients (13%) from group B failed to complete the study secondary to vaginal candidiasis. CONCLUSION: Probiotics may be considered a therapeutic option or adjunct for acne vulgaris by providing a synergistic antiinflammatory effect with systemic antibiotics while also reducing potential adverse events secondary to chronic antibiotic use.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".