Lichen planopilaris: update on pathogenesis and treatment.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lichen planopilaris (LPP) is considered to be a follicular variant of lichen planus. Clinical variants include classic LPP, frontal fibrosing alopecia, and the Graham-Little-Piccardi-Lassueur syndrome. The pathogenesis of LPP remains to be fully elucidated, but like other cicatricial alopecias involves the irreversible destruction of hair follicle stem cells and loss of a hair follicle's capacity to regenerate itself In the early stages of LPP, patients may have scalp pruritus, burning, tenderness, and increased hair shedding. A scalp biopsy shows a lymphocytic infiltrate involving the isthmus and infundibulum. Apoptotic cells present in the external root sheath and concentric fibrosis surrounds the hair follicle. Treatment is prescribed with the goal to alleviate patient symptoms and to halt the progression of hair loss. Treatment involves use of potent topical corticosteroids and/or intralesional corticosteroids. Options for systemic treatment include anti-inflammatory agents such as hydroxychloroquine, tetracyclines, pioglitazones, and immunosuppressive medications such as cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, or systemic corticosteroids. Hair transplantation may also be an option if the disease has been in clinical remission. The management of LPP can sometimes be challenging and additional research is needed to improve outcomes for patients.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".