Has any one read this article.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16230561&dopt=Citation
RTJBJ
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16230561&dopt=Citation
RTJBJ
Distinguishing androgenetic alopecia from chronic Telogen Effluvium
- Thread starter RTJBJ
- Start date
Good find. Interesting and useful. Superior to the Telogen Effluvium pull method. This is VERY useful for those of you who count hairs in the shower. It may help to determine where you are with your shed. I would like to see the paper though.
METHOD
The meat of it is right here. The method is:
1. Wash your hair in a sink.
2. Count hairs
3. Characterize hair length.
ANALYSIS
Criteria to distinguish Chronic Telogen Effluvium (CTE), Androgentic Alopecia (Androgenetic Alopecia), CTE+Androgenetic Alopecia
1. Androgenetic Alopecia Shed <100 hairs, > 10% of which are 3 cm or shorter = Androgenetic Alopecia.
"Of the 100 patients, 18 with 10% or more of hairs that were 3 cm or shorter and who shed fewer than 100 hairs were diagnosed as having Androgenetic Alopecia;"
2. CTE Shed >= 100 hairs, < 10% of which are 3 cm or shorter = CTE
"34 with fewer than 10% of hairs that were 3 cm or shorter and who shed at least 100 hairs were diagnosed as having CTE;"
3. Androgenetic Alopecia + CTE Shed >= 100 hairs, >10% of which are 3 cm or shorter = Androgenetic Alopecia + CTE
"34 with 10% or more of hairs that were 3 cm or shorter and who shed at least 100 hairs were diagnosed as having Androgenetic Alopecia + CTE;"
4. CTE in remission Shed < 100 hairs, < 10% that were 3 cm or shorter = CTE in remission.
"and 14 with fewer than 10% of hairs that were 3 cm or shorter and who shed fewer than 100 hairs were diagnosed as having CTE in remission."
METHOD
The meat of it is right here. The method is:
1. Wash your hair in a sink.
2. Count hairs
3. Characterize hair length.
ANALYSIS
Criteria to distinguish Chronic Telogen Effluvium (CTE), Androgentic Alopecia (Androgenetic Alopecia), CTE+Androgenetic Alopecia
1. Androgenetic Alopecia Shed <100 hairs, > 10% of which are 3 cm or shorter = Androgenetic Alopecia.
"Of the 100 patients, 18 with 10% or more of hairs that were 3 cm or shorter and who shed fewer than 100 hairs were diagnosed as having Androgenetic Alopecia;"
2. CTE Shed >= 100 hairs, < 10% of which are 3 cm or shorter = CTE
"34 with fewer than 10% of hairs that were 3 cm or shorter and who shed at least 100 hairs were diagnosed as having CTE;"
3. Androgenetic Alopecia + CTE Shed >= 100 hairs, >10% of which are 3 cm or shorter = Androgenetic Alopecia + CTE
"34 with 10% or more of hairs that were 3 cm or shorter and who shed at least 100 hairs were diagnosed as having Androgenetic Alopecia + CTE;"
4. CTE in remission Shed < 100 hairs, < 10% that were 3 cm or shorter = CTE in remission.
"and 14 with fewer than 10% of hairs that were 3 cm or shorter and who shed fewer than 100 hairs were diagnosed as having CTE in remission."
Preliminary remark 1, Additional note the 100 hair shed mark. The method is not say anything if you shed less than 100 hairs, but have 3 cm or greater length hairs. I'd like to read the full paper...
Miniturization - Also note pattern of miniaturized hairs on scalp.
Question posed -- Propecia shedders, if you do the above, and you fall into the CTE with your shed hairs of > 3 cm in length, this could be a good sign. I will make a compulsive leap and say that most of those hairs will come back.
Miniturization - Also note pattern of miniaturized hairs on scalp.
Question posed -- Propecia shedders, if you do the above, and you fall into the CTE with your shed hairs of > 3 cm in length, this could be a good sign. I will make a compulsive leap and say that most of those hairs will come back.
Yes, of course. But I have not read the paper. Only the abstract is available.
The gist of this is, this is a framework to think about when you are trying to discern a pattern from the shed. Some people are too dismissive about what one can learn from a shed hair. It can tell you somethings... not everything... but somethings.
The gist of this is, this is a framework to think about when you are trying to discern a pattern from the shed. Some people are too dismissive about what one can learn from a shed hair. It can tell you somethings... not everything... but somethings.
G
Guest
Guest
this method is useless
make a trichogramme
make a trichogramme
bilbok2 said:
What is a trichogramme?
I'm not suggesting that it is the definitive method. But this is the first method for counting hairs I've ever seen, so I thought that it was at least a start. It also has the advantages of being (1) non-invasive, and (2) able to be performed at home. A simple, at-home assay could be useful for helping those starting to learn about their hair loss.
