Frontal fibrosing alopecia: a retrospective clinical review of 62 patients with treatment outcome and long‐term follow‐up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frontal fibrosing alopecia is a distinctive form of scarring alopecia presenting with frontal and temporoparietal recession of the hairline. Its etiology remains unknown, and there are no universal treatment guidelines. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to define the clinical findings and treatment outcomes of 62 patients with frontal fibrosing alopecia, one of the largest cohorts to date. METHODS: Data analysis from case notes was performed on 62 patients with a diagnosis of frontal fibrosing alopecia seen from January 2004 to March 2012. RESULTS: Except for one male, all patients in this cohort were females (80% post-menopausal) and mostly Caucasians (81%). Age at onset was between 18 and 81 years. While 35% reported no symptoms, the majority (65%) had itching, pain, or burning sensations. All patients had frontal hairline recession, and 81% had complete or partial loss of eyebrows. Perifollicular erythema and perifollicular hyperkeratosis occurred in 73% and 31%, respectively. Associated autoimmune connective tissue diseases were observed in 14% of patients. Reduction in symptoms and hairline stabilization were achieved in 97% of treated patients with intralesional corticosteroids. Thirty-one percent of patients were able to stop treatments and remained in remission for six months to six years. CONCLUSION: Frontal fibrosing alopecia is increasingly seen in postmenopausal women and rarely in men. Despite the limitations of a retrospective study, we conclude early intervention and treatment with intralesional triamcinolone acetonide may halt the progression of the disease; however, further controlled prospective studies are needed to establish treatment guidelines for frontal fibrosing alopecia.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".