Predictive model for immunotherapy of alopecia areata with diphencyprone.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy with diphencyprone (diphenylcyclopropenone) is used in the treatment of alopecia areata (AA). Response rates have varied in the literature. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of diphencyprone therapy for AA in the largest reported cohort of patients; to identify patient and treatment factors predictive of therapeutic success; and to develop a practical model for predicting patient response. METHODS: The medical records of 148 consecutive patients treated with diphencyprone were reviewed. A clinically significant response to diphencyprone therapy was defined as a cosmetically acceptable response or greater than 75% terminal hair regrowth. Survival analyses using the Kaplan-Meier method and the Cox proportional hazards model were performed to determine significant factors predictive of regrowth and relapse. RESULTS: Using a survival analysis model, the cumulative patient response at 32 months was 77.9% (95% confidence interval, 56.8%-98.9%). Variables independently associated with clinically significant regrowth were age at onset of disease and baseline extent of AA. Older age at onset of AA portended a better prognosis. A cosmetically acceptable end point was obtained in 17.4% of patients with alopecia totalis/universalis, 60.3% with 75% to 99% AA, 88.1% with 50% to 74% AA, and 100% with 25% to 49% AA. A lag of 3 months was present between initiation of therapy and development of significant hair regrowth in the first responders. Relapse after achieving significant regrowth developed in 62.6% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Response to diphencyprone treatment in AA is affected by baseline extent of AA and age at disease onset. A prolonged treatment course might be necessary. A predictive model has been developed to assist with patient prognostication and counseling.
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.
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 it