Randomized phase 3 evaluation of trifarotene 50 μg/g cream treatment of moderate facial and truncal acne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acne vulgaris often affects the face, shoulders, chest, and back, but treatment of nonfacial acne has not been rigorously studied. OBJECTIVES: Assess the safety and efficacy of trifarotene 50 μg/g cream, a novel topical retinoid, in moderate facial and truncal acne. METHODS: Two phase III double-blind, randomized, vehicle-controlled, 12-week studies of once-daily trifarotene cream versus vehicle in subjects aged 9 years or older. The primary end points were rate of success on the face, as determined by the Investigator's Global Assessment (clear or almost clear and ≥2-grade improvement), and absolute change from baseline in inflammatory and noninflammatory counts from baseline to week 12. The secondary end points were rate of success on the trunk (clear or almost clear and ≥2-grade improvement) and absolute change in truncal inflammatory and noninflammatory counts from baseline to week 12. Safety was assessed through adverse events, local tolerability, vital signs, and routine laboratory testing results. RESULTS: In both studies, at week 12 the facial success rates according to the Investigator's Global Assessment and truncal Physician's Global Assessment and change in inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion counts (both absolute and percentage) were all highly significant (P < .001) in favor of trifarotene when compared with the vehicle. LIMITATIONS: Adjunctive topical or systemic treatments were not studied. CONCLUSION: These studies demonstrate that trifarotene appears to be safe, effective, and well tolerated in treatment of both facial and truncal acne.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".