Application of E max model to assess the potency of topical corticosteroid products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various potency classification listings for topical corticosteroid products (TCPs) have been based on clinical data and/or data using the US FDA’s vasoconstrictor assay (VCA). However, studies that used VCA data mainly used a single visual measurement and often the doses and dose durations were not determined in accordance with the VCA requirements. The objective was to compare the potencies of two TCPs using the Emax model to fit the blanching responses obtained from the VCA as described in a previous publication and to illustrate the influence of formulation on potency. The potencies of two marketed creams, Dermovate® containing clobetasol propionate (CP) and Elocon® containing mometasone furoate (MF) were assessed using healthy human subjects. In order to investigate the influence of formulation and associated vehicle properties, the TCPs were compared to their respective TCs from a previously published study wherein the inherent potencies of those TCs were assessed using a validated VCA method. Whereas the inherent potency of MF (Emax = -94.45 ± 0.21) was found to be greater than CP (Emax = -58.80 ± 15.65), when formulated as creams, the TCP containing CP had a higher potency (Emax = -86.15 ± 0.17) than that containing MF (Emax = -42.61 ± 26.04). This reversal of potency may be attributed to the effect of formulation factors. The comparison of the potencies of TCPs with inherent potencies of their corresponding TCs confirmed the influence of formulation parameters on the potency of those products.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".