Effects of Topical Retinoids on Acne and Post-inflammatory Hyperpigmentation in Patients with Skin of Color: A Clinical Review and Implications for Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acne is a common cause for post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH), particularly in patients with skin of color (SOC), and PIH is often more distressing to patients than the acne itself. Topical retinoids are approved for the treatment of acne and for pigmentation disorders such as melasma or mottled hyperpigmentation associated with photodamage; moreover, they have been shown to reduce hyperpigmentation in patients with SOC. Therefore, treatment with topical retinoids should be started as early as possible unless contraindicated. Use of novel formulations or application of commonly recommended moisturizers may help reduce irritation. Combining retinoids with other topical agents and procedures such as superficial chemical peels can help to improve hyperpigmentation. Primary acne lesions are likely to improve weeks before PIH resolves and helping patients manage their expectations may reduce frustration. Providing clinicians and researchers with more education about the presentation and management of dermatologic conditions in patients with SOC is also recommended.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".