Efficacy of Oral Zinc Sulphate in Patients of Acne Vulgaris
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acne is a chronic condition that affects pilosebaceous units, which manifest as either inflammatory or non-inflammatory lesions. Objective: To determine the efficacy of oral zinc sulphate in patients with acne vulgaris. Methods: An observational study was held at the OPD Department of Dermatology, Jinnah Hospital-Lahore, Pakistan, which enrolled 93 patients. The Global Acne Grading System was used to evaluate acne severity. These patients were given oral zinc sulphate 220mg twice a day for 3 months. Efficacy of treatment was labelled if there was ≥50% reduction in the baseline GAGS score at the end of 3 months of treatment. All the data were processed by SPSS version 26.0. Frequency and percentages were used for categorical parameters. The chi-square test was applied, in which a p-value<0.05 was considered significant. Results: It involved cheeks and nose in 26 (28.0%) patients, followed by forehead and chin in 23 (24.7%) patients. Efficacy of treatment was observed in 53 (57.0%) patients. An insignificant difference in the frequency of efficacy across various subgroups was observed. The percent reduction in mean GAGS score from baseline ranged from 25.0% to 75.0%, with a mean of 51.2 ± 11.9%, with a significant p-value of 0.001*. There was a statistically insignificant difference in the frequency of efficacy across various subgroups based on patients’ age, gender and severity (p-value=0.870) of disease and baseline GAGS score (p-value=0.993). Conclusions: It was concluded that almost 57% of patients with mild to moderate acne showed improvement in their disease progression with oral zinc sulphate treatment. It was cost-effective with easy availability.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".