Oral Nadolol for the Treatment of Infantile Hemangiomas: A Single‐Institution Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Beta-blockers have become the treatment of choice for problematic infantile hemangiomas (IHs). Nadolol, a nonselective beta-blocker with potential dosing advantages and a better safety profile than that of other beta-blockers, has been studied as an alternative therapeutic option. Our objective was to characterize the efficacy and safety of oral nadolol in the treatment of proliferating IHs. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at the Hospital for Sick Children between February 2010 and April 2012 in patients treated with nadolol for proliferating IHs causing functional impairment or cosmetic disfigurement. The primary outcome was the percentage involution measured independently by two assessors who scored changes in the extent of IHs by comparing serial photographs using a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS), on which 5 mm represented 10% change. RESULTS: Forty-four patients treated with nadolol for IHs with adequate photographic documentation were identified. The median age at presentation was 4.5 months (interquartile range 1.5-7.9 mos). There was a mean improvement of 91.8 ± 11.1%. At least 50% improvement was noted in 42 (95%) patients and 75% improvement in 39 (89%) patients. The mean time to 50% and 75% improvement was 2.9 and 3.7 months, respectively. Analysis of variance showed that younger age at the time of treatment start was associated with a higher mean VAS score (% involution) (p < 0.05). Treatment duration (mean 9.5 ± 5.6 months) had no significant effect on VAS score. Test of interobserver correlation showed good agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.86, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Oral nadolol is efficacious in patients with problematic IHs. Further large-scale prospective comparative studies are warranted to compare nadolol with other beta-blockers.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".