Congenital alopecia areata: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the inflammation undergoes spontaneous resolution during puberty, the patients are left with a scarring alopecia resulting in permanent hair loss of the affected area.Because eyebrows are essential and a prominent facial feature, patients with UO can be psychologically affected by their appearance and seek cosmetic solutions.Eyebrow restoration with hair follicle transplantation appears to be an excellent alternative in UO as seen in our patient as well as in two previous reports.2,3 In one of the reports, the transplanted eyebrows remained intact over a 4-year follow-up, 2 whereas the other case was lost to follow-up after the procedure.3 It is important to note that the eyebrow loss in UO may be clinically similar to the one seen in patients with frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA).3 This differential diagnosis is important because the long-term outcome to hair transplantation in most FFA patients is unsuccessful with loss of the transplanted hairs after 4-5 years.4 In contrast, the noninflammatory nature of the eyebrow alopecia in established cases of UO appears to support the permanency of the transplanted grafts.For this reason, we recommend performing histological analysis in order to confirm the diagnosis and rule out active inflammation.Furthermore, the patient should be informed about the disease nature, and longterm follow-up is important.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 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".