MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319295037 · doi:10.1177/2050313x231152066

Hydroxychloroquine for granuloma annulare: A case report on secondary hair growth in alopecia universalis

2023· article· en· W4319295037 on OpenAlexaff
Selena Osman, Danya Traboulsi

Bibliographic record

VenueSAGE Open Medical Case Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHair Growth and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlopecia universalisAlopecia areataMedicineHydroxychloroquineGranuloma annulareDermatologyHair lossScalpHair diseaseScarring alopeciaHair growthPathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alopecia areata is an autoimmune disease resulting in non-scarring hair loss. Alopecia areata can progress to become alopecia totalis (loss of hair from the entire scalp) or alopecia universalis (loss of hair form the entire body), with the progression estimated to range from 7% to 30%. There are no universally proven therapies that both induce and sustain remission, and furthermore, the course of alopecia areata tends to be unpredictable, with ~80% of patients achieving spontaneous remission within 1 year. We herein present the case of a 61-year-old female who presented with a 20-year history of alopecia universalis, and biopsy confirmed widespread granuloma annulare. Hydroxychloroquine was initiated to treat her granuloma annulare, with subsequent significant hair regrowth on her scalp, eyebrows, eyelashes, and arms. A review of the literature is presented showing that hydroxychloroquine has variable success in treatment of alopecia areata, alopecia totalis, and alopecia universalis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAGE Open Medical Case ReportsSame topicHair Growth and DisordersFrench-language works237,207