Emerging and traditional 5-α reductase inhibitors and androgen receptor antagonists for male androgenetic alopecia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Androgenetic alopecia (AGA) is the most prevalent cause of male hair loss, often requiring medical and/or surgical intervention. The US FDA has approved topical minoxidil and oral finasteride for male AGA treatment. However, some AGA patients fail to respond satisfactorily to these FDA-approved treatments and/or may experience side effects, based on their individual profiles. To mitigate the shortcomings of these treatments, researchers are now exploring alternative treatments such as newer 5-α reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) and androgen receptor antagonists (ARAs). AREAS COVERED: This article reviews the safety and effectiveness of well-known 5-α reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) like finasteride and dutasteride, as well as the newer 5-ARIs, emerging androgen receptor antagonists (ARAs), and natural products such as saw palmetto and pumpkin seed oil in the treatment of male AGA. EXPERT OPINION: Although several newer 5-ARIs, ARAs, and natural products have exhibited promise in clinical trials, additional research is essential to confirm their safety and efficacy in treating male AGA. Until additional evidence is available for these agents, the preferred treatment choices for male AGA are the FDA-approved treatments, topical minoxidil, and oral finasteride.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".