Tazarotene 0.1% cream versus tretinoin 0.05% emollient cream in the treatment of photodamaged facial skin: a multicenter, double‐blind, randomized, parallel‐group study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of tazarotene 0.1% cream and tretinoin 0.05% emollient cream in the treatment of photodamaged facial skin. METHODS: Subjects were eligible to enroll in this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study if they had at least mild levels of facial fine wrinkling and mottled hyperpigmentation, and at least moderate levels of one of these. Subjects were randomly assigned to apply either tazarotene cream or tretinoin emollient cream to their faces once each evening for 24 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 173 subjects were enrolled, of whom 157 completed. All significant between-group differences in efficacy measures were in favor of tazarotene - for fine wrinkling at the study endpoint and, at earlier timepoints, for treatment success (> or =50% global improvement), and the overall integrated assessment of photodamage, mottled hyperpigmentation, and coarse wrinkling. Both products were comparable in terms of cosmetic acceptability and tolerability except that tazarotene was associated with a transiently higher incidence of a burning sensation on the skin (in the first week of treatment but not thereafter). CONCLUSIONS: Tazarotene 0.1% cream can offer superior efficacy over tretinoin 0.05% emollient cream in the treatment of facial photodamage, particularly with respect to the speed of improvement.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".