MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392122142 · doi:10.1177/2050313x241231490

Facial hair enhancement with minoxidil—an off-label use

2024· article· en· W4392122142 on OpenAlexaff
Arveen Shokravi, Hanieh Zargham

Bibliographic record

VenueSAGE Open Medical Case Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHair Growth and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinoxidilMedicineDermatologyHypertrichosisScalpHair lossFood and drug administrationHair growthBlack hairCabelloPharmacologyPhysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Minoxidil was first introduced in the 1970s as an anti-hypertensive medication. Hypertrichosis and scalp hair regrowth were noted by users, and the topical formulation of minoxidil was later approved by the Food and Drug Administration for androgenic alopecia and female pattern hair loss. Since then, minoxidil has been used off-label for various hair loss conditions and cosmetic outcomes. There are a multitude of informal reports on online communities presenting personal anecdotes regarding minoxidil's effectiveness as a facial hair enhancement tool; however, this has been seldom discussed in the literature. In this report, we will present a case of identical twin males, one of which used topical 5% minoxidil for over a year on the beard and mustache area, while the other abstained from using the medication.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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