MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382058787 · doi:10.1093/bjd/ljad113.335

PA31 Congenital alopecia areata: a systematic review

2023· review· en· W4382058787 on OpenAlexaff
Aileen M. Feschuk, Maxwell Green, Manuel Valdebran

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Dermatology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutoimmune Bullous Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlopecia areataMedicineAlopecia universalisMinoxidilDermatologyHair lossScalpFamily historyPlaceboInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Alopecia areata (AA) describes nonscarring, generally patchy, hair loss that can affect the entire scalp [alopecia totalis (AT)] and body [alopecia universalis (AU)]. AA is considered to be an acquired autoimmune condition. However, cases of congenital AA (CAA) have been reported. This study aimed to summarize and analyse data from existing CAA reports. No funding was obtained for this research. Following the PRISMA guidelines, PubMed and Web of Science were searched. Records reporting cases of AA present at birth were included. Twelve patients were identified, with a female predominance (n = 7; 58%). Three were premature (25%). Alopecic pattern at birth was AA in eight cases (67%), AT in two (17%) and AU in two (17%). A positive family history of AA was reported in five cases (42%). The AA diagnosis was clinical in eight cases (67%) and biopsy-proven in four (33%). Nine patients received/reported treatment (75%). Of those treated with topical corticosteroid (TCS) alone (n = 3/9; 33%), two demonstrated total regrowth (67%), while one experienced development into AU (33%). Two patients were treated with TCS and a topical vasodilator (TV), minoxidil (22%). One experienced full regrowth, while the other demonstrated partial regrowth, until the TCS was discontinued (i.e. the TV was used alone), and AT resulted. One patient was treated with TCS and oral antihistamine (11%), and one was treated with placebo lotion (11%). Both experienced partial regrowth. Two patients were treated with oral pulse steroid, a topical immunomodulator and TV, but no follow-up was provided (22%). Limitations of this review include small sample sizes and the possibility of missed cases due to a lack of well-established terminology and under-reporting. Additionally, not all cases were biopsy-proven. Biopsy is not necessary for AA diagnosis but is helpful in confirming unique (e.g. congenital) presentations of the condition. Given that AA is typically considered an acquired autoimmune condition, congenital cases call our understanding of AA into question. However, a positive family history in five cases suggests that genetic factors are involved in the development of CAA, as with acquired AA. Additionally, the female predominance of CAA is in keeping with acquired AA. Finally, given that TCSs yielded partial or total hair regrowth in five of six patients who received them (83%), TCSs are a reasonable first-line treatment option for CAA. In conclusion, CAA should be considered as a differential diagnosis of alopecia in the newborn, and increased CAA awareness should result in an increased number of patients receiving proper treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of DermatologySame topicAutoimmune Bullous Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207