Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent controlled clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of various hormonal preparations, including oral contraceptives, in treatment of acne. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this article is to evaluate the best current evidence on the efficacy of hormonal treatment of acne. METHODS: English-language controlled clinical trials of systemic hormonal treatment of acne were sought by search of references of general dermatology texts, reviews on acne, drug product monographs, and computer-assisted search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, and COCHRANE databases between 1970 and 2003 using the key words hormonal, oral contraceptive, acne, spironolactone, cyproterone, flutamide, and therapy. For each agent, studies fulfilling the highest level of evidence were selected for further evaluation. RESULTS: The literature search recovered two placebo-controlled random controlled trials (RCTs) each of ethinyl estradiol 0.035 mg and norgestimate and ethinyl estradiol 20 microg and leonorgestrel 100 microg, three active-comparator RCTs of ethinyl estradiol 0.035 mg and cyproterone acetate 2 mg, one active comparator RCT of ethinyl estradiol 30 mug and drosperinone 3 mg, three small placebo-controlled RCTs of spironolactone, and one active-comparator RCT of flutamide. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of Tri-Cyclen and Alesse in acne is supported by high-quality RCTs (level A evidence). Evidence for the efficacy of Diane-35, spironolactone, and flutamide is derived from lower-quality RCTs (level B evidence). Results from a population-based epidemiological study suggests that Diane-35 is the most effective of these oral contraceptives in the treatment of acne (level B evidence; epidemiological study).
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".