Modern external therapy moderately severe forms of rosacea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The scientific review of modern approaches to the etiology and pathophysiology of rosacea is presented. The features of the disease, importance and possibility of reducing or eliminating the symptoms of the disease for the patient and the doctor in the early stages are shown. The various sources highlighted the frequent and specific, common and rare species of clinical picture of the disease are analyzed. Specific and differentiating symptoms are presented. The “steroid rosacea”, the reasons for occurrence, the difficulty faced by the doctor during the treatment and the possibility of torpid course are described. There was a contradiction of researcher’s views about approaches to the etiology, pathogenesis of the disease and the experimental data. The classification of the rosacea forms, drugs and therapy of moderately severe forms of rosacea are presented. The new topical drugs for the treatment of this disease are described. Results on the methods of topical treatment of moderate forms of rosacea, the results of several double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in the US and Canada, the effectiveness of treatment of rosacea with modern drugs (ivermectin, brimonidine) compared to traditional (in particular, with azelaic acid) are presented. In conclusion high effectiveness, good tolerability and safety of drugs ivermectin (Soolantra) and brimonidine (Mirvaso® Derm) (Galderma, Switzerland) are shown. It is suggested to include the above-mentioned drugs to the Russian standards of treatment of moderately severe forms of rosacea.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".