Frontal Fibrosing Alopecia: Update and Review of Challenges and Successes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) is a variant of lichen planopilaris (LPP) and is characterised as a progressive cicatricial alopecia affecting the frontotemporal hairline. OBJECTIVES: To perform a comprehensive, up-to-date review of the etiopathogenesis, clinicopathological features, and therapeutic options for FFA. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using PubMed (from 1946) and Cochrane (from 1991) databases on March 7, 2017. We included all retrospective and prospective studies reported in English. Only cases studies with reported treatment regimen and outcome were included. No randomised control trials were found. MeSH terms used included frontal fibrosing alopecia, postmenopausal, histopathologic, cicatricial, and treatment. RESULTS: With an increasing incidence of FFA occurring predominantly in postmenopausal women, progress has been made clinically and histologically in understanding this scarring alopecia. Conflicting results have been reported with various treatments, including intralesional or oral corticosteroids, antiandrogens, antimalarials, antibiotics, and surgery. To date, no randomised control trials for treatment of FFA have been conducted. CONCLUSION: The aetiology and clinical course of FFA remain to be established. Unfortunately, despite the numerous treatment options available, no one therapeutic regimen has proven effective in stopping recession of the hairline and inducing hair growth.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".