The Comparative Effects of Monotherapy with Topical Minoxidil, Oral Finasteride, and Topical Finasteride in Postmenopausal Women with Pattern Hair Loss: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Oral finasteride and topical minoxidil are long-standing androgenetic alopecia (AGA) treatments; topical finasteride is a more recent medicine. Few studies have compared their therapeutic effects in postmenopausal women. We compared the therapeutic impact of topical finasteride (1-4 sprays of 0.25% topical finasteride solution daily for 12 months), oral finasteride (2.5 mg oral finasteride once daily for 12 months), and topical minoxidil (1 mL of topical minoxidil 5% twice daily for 12 months) in postmenopausal women with AGA. Methods: We conducted Bayesian network meta-analyses of individual patient-level data insofar as four clinically relevant endpoints, namely, 12-month change in (1) total hair density, (2) hair diameter, (3) clinical photographs, and (4) patients' opinion of efficacy. Data were obtained through medical charts. Regimens' surface under the cumulative ranking distribution (SUCRA) values and relative effects - as per odds ratios - were computed. Results: 0.05). Conclusion: Oral finasteride is ranked more effective than the topical forms of minoxidil and finasteride; however, more studies are needed to confirm this result.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".