Topical minoxidil fortified with finasteride: An account of maintenance of hair density after replacing oral finasteride
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim:The aim of the following study is to assess the efficacy of maintaining hair growth with 5% topical minoxidil fortified with 0.1% finasteride in patients with AGA after initial treatment with 5% topical minoxidil and oral finasteride for two years. Materials and Methods:A retrospective assessment was done in 50 male patients aged 20-40 years with AGA. All the patients had been initially treated with topical minoxidil and oral finasteride for a period of two years. Results:Of the 45 patients who underwent a continuous treatment for AGA, 84.44% maintained a good hair density with topical minoxidil-finasteridecombinatio. Of the five patients who discontinued oral finasteride for 8-12 months, four demonstrated good improvement in hair density when treatment was resumed with topical minoxidil-finasteride combination. Conclusion:Topical finasteride can be considered for hair density maintenance after initial improvement with oral finasteride,
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".