Real-World Effectiveness, Safety, and Tolerability of Cetosomal Minoxidil 5% Alone and a Fixed Drug Combination of Cetosomal Minoxidil 5% With Finasteride 0.1% in the Management of Androgenetic Alopecia (Inbilt Study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Topical minoxidil 5% is a widely used medication in the treatment of androgenetic alopecia (AGA) but is usually associated with adverse events (AE) such as scalp irritation, dryness, and itching. This prompted the development of nonalcoholic solutions, and cetosomal minoxidil was the most recent one. Methods Retrospective multicenter data analysis was conducted at 66 centers across India for adult AGA patients. Patients treated with either cetosomal minoxidil 5% alone (Group I) or a fixed drug combination of cetosomal minoxidil 5% and finasteride 0.1% (Group II) were analyzed for the effectiveness and safety of either formulation. The Physician Global Assessment (PGA) and Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) were used to assess each treatment's effectiveness. Safety was reported by records of AE and a product tolerability assessment with subjective cosmetic acceptability as recorded by physicians. Results Of the 261 patients, 132 were in Group I, and 129 were in Group II. At 16 weeks, in PGA, mild to moderate improvement was noted in 48% and 32% of patients in Groups I and II, respectively, whereas significant to excellent improvement was seen in 52% and 68% of patients in Groups I and II, respectively. Similar results were noted for PtGA. In Group I, 64% of patients rated the product's tolerability as excellent, and 69% reported the same in Group II. Meanwhile, 64% of patients in Group I and 74% in Group II rated the product as excellent in subjective cosmetic acceptability. Conclusions From real-world analysis, cetosomal-based minoxidil solutions were found to be effective and tolerable in AGA and could serve as therapeutic alternatives to alcoholic formulations for AGA management.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".