Ingenol Mebutate: A Promising Treatment for Actinic Keratoses and Nonmelanoma Skin Cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A new treatment for actinic keratoses, ingenol mebutate, was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. OBJECTIVE: To review the mechanisms of action, efficacy and safety data, and practical recommendations for ingenol mebutate. METHODS: The PubMed and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched in March/April 2012 using the terms PEP005, ingenol mebutate, and ingenol 3-angelate. The abstracts from the Annual Scientific Meeting of the Australian College of Dermatologists (2009-2011) and the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (2009-2012) were also searched. RESULTS: Due to its multiple mechanisms of action, ingenol mebutate treatment resulted in short- and long-term efficacy similar to other topical treatments for actinic keratoses in a shorter period of 2 or 3 days. This short therapy would reduce the duration of adverse events. Premarketing trials for treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancers also showed promising results for ingenol mebutate. CONCLUSION: Ingenol mebutate is a convenient, safe, and effective intervention for precancerous and cancerous skin conditions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".