The efficacy and tolerability of tazarotene foam, 0.1%, in the treatment of acne vulgaris in 2 multicenter, randomized, vehicle-controlled, double-blind studies.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tazarotene 0.1% gel and cream are effective topical treatments for acne. Tazarotene foam, 0.1% was developed to provide an alternative, safe, and effective formulation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate efficacy and tolerability of tazarotene foam, 0.1% in adults and adolescents with acne vulgaris. METHODS: Two randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group studies were conducted at 39 centers in the United States and Canada. The first study involved 744 participants and the second 742, aged 12 to 45 years, who were randomized to receive treatment with either tazarotene foam, 0.1% or vehicle foam once daily for 12 weeks. Lesion counts, Investigator's Static Global Assessments (ISGA), and Subject's Global Assessments (SGA) were evaluated at baseline and weeks 2, 4, 8, and 12. Tolerability was monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: At week 12 in both studies, treatment with tazarotene foam led to greater decreases from baseline in mean absolute and percentage change in lesion counts (noninflammatory, inflammatory, and total), greater proportion of participants with ≥2-grade improvement in ISGA score, and greater proportion of participants with ISGA score of 0 or 1 than vehicle treatment (P<.001 for all). Only application-site skin irritation and dryness were reported by >5% of participants in active treatment groups in both studies. LIMITATIONS: The efficacy and tolerability of tazarotene foam were not compared directly with those of other formulations. CONCLUSION: Tazarotene foam, 0.1% significantly reduced the number and severity of acne lesions after 12 weeks and had a safe and acceptable tolerability profile.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".