Melasma: systematic review of the systemic treatments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently available treatment options for melasma include prevention of UV radiation, topical lightening agents, chemical peels, and light-based and laser therapies. However, none have shown effective and sustained results, with incomplete clearance and frequent recurrences. There has been increasing interest recently in oral medications and dietary supplements in improving melasma. We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety/tolerability of oral medications and dietary supplements for the treatment of melasma. Multiple databases were systematically searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of oral medication for treatment of melasma alone or in combination with other treatments. A total of eight RCTs met inclusion criteria. Oral medications and dietary supplements evaluated include tranexamic acid, Polypodium leucotomos extract, beta-carotenoid, melatonin, and procyanidin. These agents appear to have a beneficial effect on melasma improvement. In conclusion, oral medications have a role in melasma treatment and have been shown to be efficacious and tolerable with a minimal number and severity of adverse events. Therefore, dermatologists should keep oral medications and dietary supplements in their armamentarium for the treatment of melasma.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it