MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405105866 · doi:10.1159/000542880

Do Non-Prescription Products Help in Managing Androgenic Alopecia?

2024· review· en· W4405105866 on OpenAlexaff
Aditya K. Gupta, Honglin Wang, Tong Wang, Mesbah Talukder

Bibliographic record

VenueSkin Appendage Disorders · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHair Growth and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMediprobe Research (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical prescriptionDermatologyBusinessMedicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Androgenetic alopecia (AGA) is the most common cause of hair loss. Currently, approved medications for AGA are topical minoxidil and oral finasteride, both of which are prescription medications which may cause side effects. Non-prescription products such as herbal extracts and over-the-counter medications have limited evidence regarding safety and efficacy; however, they may be an alternative for patients unable or unwilling to use prescription medication. Summary: bran, pumpkin seed oil, rosemary oil, saw palmetto, and watercress. The available data demonstrate considerable improvements in one or more parameters: total hair density, terminal hair density and hair diameter. Procyanidin and cetirizine were investigated in more investigator-blinded, randomized controlled trials than other agents. Minimal adverse events were observed; however, more robust clinical trial and long-term safety and efficacy data are warranted. Key Message: Additional investigations through the conduct of high quality randomized, controlled trials with larger numbers of patients will help determine the effectiveness and safety of this class of compounds, either as monotherapy or as an addition to current pharmacological interventions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSkin Appendage DisordersSame topicHair Growth and DisordersFrench-language works237,207