MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2975119289 · doi:10.1111/dth.12989

The Effect of Platelet Rich Plasma on Hair Re‐growth in Patients with Alopecia Areata Totalis: a Clinical Pilot Study

2019· article· en· W2975119289 on OpenAlexaff
Faezeh Khademi, Zohreh Tehranchinia, Fahimeh Abdollahimajd, Shima Younespour, Seyyed Mohammad Reza Kazemi‐Bajestani, Kambiz Taheri

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatologic Therapy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHair Growth and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlopecia areataPlatelet-rich plasmaMedicineScalpHair lossHair growthPlateletDermatologySurgeryInternal medicinePhysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autologous rich plasma (PRP) is blood plasma with enhanced concentration of platelets and is enriched with several growth factors which stimulate tissue regeneration. The current study aimed to investigate the effect of PRP on hair regrowth in patients with alopecia areata (AA) totalis. Ten subjects (28.9 ± 6.28 years; five males and five females) with clinically diagnosed AA totalis for at least 3 years who had not received any treatment within 3 months prior to the study were recruited. Blood sample was collected in thrombocyte harvesting tubes. The PRP was separated via centrifugation. The patients' scalp was divided sagittally into two approximately equal parts. In each patient, 4 mL of PRP was injected intradermally into the left or right side of the scalp; in each point, 0.1 mL of PRP was injected. Each patient was followed up monthly for 4 months. No hair regrowth was seen in eight patients and in two patients only <10% hair regrowth was observed. Totally, no significant effect was found for PRP on hair regrowth (p > .05). There was no side effect during treatment. Single dermal PRP injection did not prove to have any effect on hair regrowth in these patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatologic TherapySame topicHair Growth and DisordersFrench-language works237,207