Platelet-Rich Plasma as a Treatment for Androgenetic Alopecia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) treatment may encourage hair growth by promoting cellular maturation, differentiation, and proliferation. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of PRP as a treatment for androgenetic alopecia (AGA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search combined with meta-analysis was used to calculate the overall standardized mean difference (SMD) in hair density in patients treated with PRP injections in comparison with baseline and placebo treatment. Chi squared analysis and Fisher exact test were used to investigate variation in protocols. RESULTS: The overall SMD in hair density was 0.58 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35-0.80) and 0.51 (95% CI: 0.23-0.80, p < .0004) in favor of PRP treatment when compared with baseline and placebo treatment, respectively. CONCLUSION: Platelet-rich plasma is beneficial in the treatment of AGA. It is recommended that 3 monthly sessions of PRP (once monthly ×3 treatments) be used followed by a 3- to 6-month maintenance period.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".