A Canadian Consensus on Androgenetic Alopecia: Approach and Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Androgenetic alopecia (AGA) is the most common hair loss condition affecting between 40% to 50% of Canadian men and women by 50 years of age. This nonscarring hereditary condition can significantly affect patients, impacting their overall well-being and quality of life. Despite the multitude of interventions and the willingness of people with AGA to try treatments, there are no clear Canadian guidelines on its management. An expert panel of 11 physicians developed Delphi-based consensus recommendations of interventions for the management of AGA in male and female adults. Forty-five interventions were reviewed. Seven interventions are recommended, including oral dutasteride; oral finasteride; topical finasteride; topical minoxidil; platelet-rich plasma; microneedling; and oral minoxidil. Five interventions are recommended with near consensus: intralesional dutasteride; ketoconazole shampoo; low level laser therapy; aminexil; as part of a regimen and 17 are not recommended (adenosine; cetirizine; carboxytherapy; amla syrup; microfilament thread; Nourkrin; injectable minoxidil; caffeine; ceramide; topical herbal formulations; piroctone olamine shampoo or leave-on; rosemary oil; shampoo and lotion hair care products containing fermented papaya, fermented mangosteen, and caffeine; basic Fibroblast Growth Factor (bFGF); flutamide).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".