MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412423399 · doi:10.1111/ijd.17957

Is the Safety of Finasteride Correlated With Its Route of Administration: Topical Versus Oral? A Pharmacovigilance Study With Data From the United States Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System

2025· article· en· W4412423399 on OpenAlexaff
Aditya K. Gupta, Mesbah Talukder, Sharon A. Keene, Mary A. Bamimore

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Dermatology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsMediprobe Research (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFinasterideAdverse Event Reporting SystemAdverse effectDutasteridePopulationInternal medicinePharmacologyProstate cancerProstateCancerEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved oral finasteride for androgenetic alopecia. In 2022, approximately 2.6 million U.S. men used it for hair loss and prostate conditions. Post-finasteride syndrome (PFS), proposed in 2012, involves persistent sexual and neuropsychiatric adverse events (AEs) after cessation. These AEs are controversial and often lack assessment of contributing risk factors. We analyzed FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) data to explore finasteride's administration route and PFS-like AEs. METHODS: Using the information component (IC) method for disproportionality analyses, we assessed signals for 13 PFS-related AEs with topical and oral finasteride and dutasteride across two periods: 2006-2011 (pre-PFS reporting) and 2019-2024 (post-PFS reporting). These periods reflect times before and after formal PFS reporting in 2012. Eight analyses per AE were conducted based on agent, route, and era. RESULTS: Fewer signals for PFS-like AEs were detected with topical finasteride compared to oral finasteride in both eras. No signals were found for topical dutasteride, possibly because its use is very limited. Many reported AEs, such as erectile dysfunction and depression, may be influenced by age, stress, or comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Signals for PFS-like AEs were detected with topical finasteride, but were less frequent than with oral finasteride. The high prevalence of these AEs in the general population and the influence of confounding factors, such as psychological stress or nocebo effects, combined with the lack of genotyping, hormonal assessments, or family history data in most reports, suggest caution in attributing causality to finasteride. Topical finasteride may pose a lower risk, but robust evidence is needed to clarify its safety profile.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of DermatologySame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207