Treatment of Xanthelasma Palpebrarum Using Trichloroacetic Acid 80.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: We sought to analyze the effectiveness, recurrence, safety, and patient satisfaction rates following xanthelasma palpebrarum (XP) treatment with trichloroacetic acid (TCA) 80%. Methods: This was a retrospective review of patients treated with TCA 80% for XP between January 2012 and August 2022. A prospective telephone questionnaire was administered to the same patient population to evaluate recurrence, patient satisfaction, and side effects. Results: In total, 77 patients were included in this retrospective review. Most patients received one treatment (n=38; 49.4%) and had XP located bilaterally (n=59; 76.6%) on either the lower eyelids only (n=18; 23.4%) or both the upper and lower eyelids (n=18; 23.4%). Following treatment, 94.2 percent (n=49) of patients expressed satisfaction and 97.2 percent (n=70) displayed a clinician-reported improvement in XP. In the prospective patient questionnaire, the reoccurrence of XP was self-reported in 24.7 percent (n=19) of all patients. The adverse events, reported by the clinician during the retrospective review and the patient during the prospective questionnaire, included erythema (n=2; 2.6%), hyperpigmentation (n=4; 5.2%), hypopigmentation (n=3; 3.9%), and scarring (n=2; 2.6%). Limitations: Limitations may exist due to the retrospective nature of the chart review, missing data, and lack of a comparator cohort. Thus, further studies are required to validate this study's preliminary results. Conclusion: XP has a strong likelihood of recurrence. However, TCA 80% for XP management should be considered as a treatment option due to high patient satisfaction, mild side effects, low cost, and long-term cosmetic results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".