MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174298125 · doi:10.1080/09546634.2021.1945527

Minoxidil: a comprehensive review

2021· review· en· W3174298125 on OpenAlexaff
Aditya K. Gupta, Mesbah Talukder, M. Venkataraman, Mary A. Bamimore

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dermatological Treatment · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHair Growth and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMediprobe Research (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMinoxidilDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Topical minoxidil (5% foam, 5% solution, and 2% solution) is FDA-approved for androgenetic alopecia (AGA) in men and women.Mechanism of action: Minoxidil acts through multiple pathways (vasodilator, anti-inflammatory agent, inducer of the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway, an antiandrogen), and may also affect the length of the anagen and telogen phases.Pharmacokinetics: Approximately 1.4% of topical minoxidil is absorbed through the skin. Minoxidil is a prodrug that is metabolized by follicular sulfotransferase to minoxidil sulfate (active form). Those with higher sulfotransferase activity may respond better than patients with lower sulfotransferase activity.Clinical efficacy (topical minoxidil): In a five-year study, 2% minoxidil exhibited peak hair growth in males at year one with a decline in subsequent years. Topical minoxidil causes hair regrowth in both frontotemporal and vertex areas. The 5% solution and foam were not significantly different in efficacy from the 2% solution.Oral and Sublingual minoxidil (not FDA approved; off-label): After 6 months of administration, minoxidil 5 mg/day was significantly more effective than topical 5% and 2% in male AGA. Low-dose 0.5–5 mg/day may also be safe and effective for female pattern hair loss and chronic telogen effluvium. Sublingual minoxidil may be safe and effective in male and female pattern hair loss.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.180
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations211
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dermatological TreatmentSame topicHair Growth and DisordersFrench-language works237,207