A Systematic Review on Oral Isotretinoin Therapy and Clinically Observable Wound Healing in Acne Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The association between isotretinoin and atypical wound healing remains controversial. It is common practice to delay elective procedures for 6 to 24 months after oral isotretinoin therapy. The studies supporting common practices (SCP) recommend extending this period to include the 6 to 24 months preceding treatment. The opposing studies (challenging common practices; CCP) state that the rate of scarring in isotretinoin patients is low and that delaying elective procedures is unnecessary. These practices impact a large number of dermatology patients undergoing acne treatment. This systematic review compiled articles obtained from online databases and examined data from both SCP and CCP studies. The inconsistencies in the reported data and the methodological flaws in the literature preclude any firm conclusions that can resolve the controversy. As such, this review demonstrates that there is insufficient evidence to either corroborate or refute delaying elective procedures in isotretinoin acne patients. Although the recent literature trends toward removing the procedural delay, we advocate for clinicians to consider the research presented in this review in the context of their own clinical experience and each individual patient's situation. The possible negative procedural outcomes must be weighed against the severity of the patient's acne scarring and the psychosocial impact of this scarring on the patient.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".