Nonprescription acne vulgaris treatments: Their role in our treatment armamentarium—An international panel discussion
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: Acne vulgaris (acne), a common inflammatory skin disorder, has its peak incidence between 14 and 19 years of age, with girls frequently developing acne earlier than boys. Over recent years, persistent acne is becoming more prevalent in adult women. OBJECTIVES: This review and panel discussion addresses challenges in acne management, particularly in adult women. The role which nonprescription acne treatment can play is explored when used as monotherapy or as an adjunctive treatment for acne of all severity. METHODS: The best available evidence on nonprescription acne treatment was coupled with the opinion of an international expert panel of dermatologists to adopt statements and recommendations discussed in this review. RESULTS: All severity of acne has a significant burden on patients. Addressing environmental factors that are important for the individual with acne may help to educate, prevent, effectively manage, and maintain acne, as per the panel. They agreed that the adult female acne population has unique needs because of their aging skin and social environment. Nonprescription acne treatment products may help to balance the efficacy and tolerability of prescription acne treatment. Currently, there are no specific guidelines for how to use nonprescription acne treatment products in these patients. CONCLUSION: The panel agreed that guidelines including nonprescription acne treatment either as monotherapy for mild acne or in combination with prescription treatments for more severe acne would address a significant unmet need.
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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 it