Double-Blinded, Vehicle-Controlled Proof of Concept Study to Investigate the Recurrence of Inflammatory and Noninflammatory Acne Lesions Using Tretinoin Gel (Microsphere) 0.04% in Male Patients after Oral Isotretinoin Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Although isotretinoin orally is commonly used for moderate to severe or scarring acne, it is not a cure. Unfortunately recurrence is unpredictable and varies within the acne population. Objectives. Using a proof of concept study, determine the recurrence of acne after isotretinoin use in male patients. Methods. Twenty males aged 18-45 years old were enrolled. Subjects successfully completed a treatment of acne vulgaris with oral isotretinoin (120-150 mg/kg/course). Subjects were randomized 1 to 1. The study duration was 24 weeks. The primary endpoint measured was the absolute change in lesion counts from baseline to weeks 16 and 24. Local tolerability assessments were measured. Results. There were favorable changes in all outcomes measured. Overall, there was a 38.7% lower lesion count with tretinoin 0.04% microsphere gel use versus vehicle. The active product was well tolerated with great patient satisfaction. There were no significant safety issues. The limitations included the low number of patients enrolled, average age, and percentage of patients lost to follow-up. Conclusion. In summary, the results favored tretinoin 0.04% microsphere gel in the prevention of recurrent acne after isotretinoin use in male patients over 18 years old over a six-month period.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".