Comparing the frequency of isotretinoin-induced hair loss at <0.5-mg/kg/d versus ≥0.5-mg/kg/d dosing in acne patients: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over 1 million isotretinoin prescriptions are authorized in the United States per year. An insight into the frequency, dose dependency, timing, and reversibility of hair loss associated with isotretinoin treatment for acne vulgaris could help guide dosing regimens and patient counseling. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the frequency of hair loss in patients with acne vulgaris on <0.5 mg/kg/d daily doses of isotretinoin versus the frequency of hair loss in patients with acne vulgaris on ≥0.5 mg/kg/d daily doses of isotretinoin. An Embase and MEDLINE search was conducted on July 15, 2020, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The review focused on acne vulgaris patients. The treatment of acne vulgaris is the most common use of isotretinoin, and the population is typically younger and with fewer comorbidities. Twenty-two studies reported hair loss with oral isotretinoin treatment. A frequency analysis suggested that patients with acne vulgaris on <0.5 mg/kg/d of isotretinoin experienced hair loss at a frequency of 3.2% (n = 18/565) compared with those on ≥0.5 mg/kg/d, who experienced hair loss at a frequency of 5.7% (n = 192/3375). Inferential statistics were not possible. Physicians should consider counseling patients about the risk of telogen effluvium prior to drug initiation, as is commonly done for other side effects. The potential trend of increased hair loss frequency at a higher daily dosing warrants further investigation using higher-quality research.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".