Topical finasteride for male and female pattern hair loss: Is it a safe and effective alternative?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral finasteride is an FDA-approved treatment for androgenetic alopecia (AGA). Topical finasteride, while not FDA-approved, lacks the systemic adverse effects associated with oral finasteride. The efficacy of topical finasteride has been evaluated. AIM: To review whether topical finasteride is a safe and effective treatment for male and female pattern hair loss. METHOD: A structured search in PubMed and Google Scholar identified 864 records, with 32 articles meeting the inclusion criteria for review. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: ). Additionally, a double-blind, randomized trial compared the efficacies of twice-daily finasteride 1% topical gel and once-daily finasteride 1 mg oral tablet for 6 months, and found similar results in both groups. Moreover, a combination of topical minoxidil and topical finasteride may enhance efficacy. Topical finasteride reduces both scalp and plasma DHT levels. In an open-label pharmacodynamic study, a 7-day treatment of twice-daily finasteride 0.25% topical solution and once-daily finasteride 1 mg oral tablet provided similar inhibition of plasma DHT. Topical finasteride reduces the potential for systemic side effects, including the risk of sexual dysfunction. The side effects are localized to the application site, for example, scalp pruritus, burning sensation, irritation, contact dermatitis, and erythema. CONCLUSION: Topical finasteride may be an alternative for those concerned about the oral formulation's systemic side effects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".