MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407591641 · doi:10.1111/ajd.14432

Prevention of Post‐Inflammatory Hyperpigmentation in Skin of Colour: A Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4407591641 on OpenAlexaff
Kristie Mar, Mahan Maazi, Bushra Khalid, Ou Jia Wang, Touraj Khosravi‐Hafshejani

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Journal of Dermatology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDermatologyHyperpigmentationSkin hyperpigmentationIncidence (geometry)MEDLINESystematic reviewSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) impacts all skin tones with a heightened predilection for Fitzpatrick skin types (FST) III-VI. Preventative measures include pre- and post-intervention approaches, such as sunscreen and corticosteroids. This systematic review aims to summarise the preventative measure outcomes for skin of colour individuals. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE (from 1946) and Embase (from 1974) in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. RESULTS: Of 14 studies, 369 cases were included. The mean age was 38 years (n = 293) and 72% were female (n = 265). All patients were of Asian ethnicity, and 42% were of FST III, 54% FST IV, and 4% FST V. Nearly all cases were precipitated by laser therapy (> 95%), and the face was the most reported location (85%). The most successful preventative measure was sunscreen alone or combined with other ingredients. Less successful outcomes were seen with topical corticosteroids and systemic tranexamic acid, while cooling air devices exacerbated the development of PIH. CONCLUSION: Overall, only sunscreen consistently prevented the incidence of PIH; however, the severity of the ensuing PIH may be diminished with other measures. There is considerable room for improved preventative strategies for at-risk populations.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.815

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.361 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations12
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian Journal of DermatologySame topicDermatologic Treatments and ResearchFrench-language works237,207