Platelet-Rich Plasma as a Treatment for Androgenetic Alopecia
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
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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