Dermatology: how to manage acne vulgaris
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acne vulgaris is the most common skin disease that can lead to disfigurement and psychological distress. This article aims to provide a narrative updated review on the management of acne vulgaris. METHODS: A PubMed search was performed with Clinical Queries using the key term "acne". The search strategy included clinical trials, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, observational studies and reviews. The search was restricted to articles published in English. RESULTS: Treatments of acne include proper skin care, topical medications, oral medications and procedural therapies. Topical agents are the first-line treatment for mild-to-moderate acne and can be used as combination therapy for more severe acne. Systemic therapies are usually prescribed for the initial treatment of moderate-to-severe acne as well as for acne that is refractory to topical therapies. CONCLUSION: Topical retinoids are the drugs of choice for the treatment and maintenance therapy of patients with mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris. Depending on the severity of the acne, topical retinoids may be used alone or in combination with benzoyl peroxide and topical or oral antibiotics. Oral antibiotics are an important therapy for inflammatory acne unresponsive to topical therapy. Neither topical nor oral antibiotics should be used as monotherapy. Oral contraceptives and/or spironolactone are useful for many women with acne. Oral isotretinoin is the drug of choice for severe, extensive, nodular acne vulgaris but is also often used in moderate cases where scarring is evident, acne-related psychosocial distress is significant or other treatment modalities have failed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.009 |
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".