MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2397789844

Lichen planopilaris: update on pathogenesis and treatment.

2013· article· en· W2397789844 on OpenAlexaff
Akerke Baibergenova, Jeff Donovan

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHair Growth and Disorders
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineScarring alopeciaDermatologyScalpHair lossHair follicleInfundibulumHair transplantationHydroxychloroquineBiopsyPathologyDiseaseInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHair Growth and DisordersFrench-language works237,207