you were right, my apologies. But now that i read more closely I guess the reason is that when counting hairs which are >=30microns then the hair count increased for 71% and 100% respectively, disregarding the increase/decrease of smaller hairs.
But when counting hairs of ALL sizes however there was only an increase in 65% and 78% of the cases. Meaning that the loss of smaller hairs must’ve outweighed the increase in thicker hairs in 35% and 22% of the cases (as was said by Spanish Dude).
However it’s unclear to me if the increased hairs in the 30+ micron count are NEWLY formed hairs or formally smaller hairs which have increased in diameter.
» doh thats rly exhausting. read it again please from the start, not from the
» end. what “take rate” means is complete different story, I dont want even
» start talking about it yet.,
»
»
» 65% (11/17) of the treated sites in the non-stimulated group responded to
» the treatment by
» increasing numbers of hairs of all sizes
» · 71% (12/17) of the treated sites in the non-stimulated group responded
» to the treatment by
» increasing numbers of hairs over 30 micron in diameter
» · 78% (7/9) of the treated sites in the stimulated group responded to the
» treatment by
» increasing numbers of hairs of all sizes
» · 100% (9/9) of the treated sites in the stimulated group responded to the
» treatment by
» increasing numbers of hairs over 30 micron in diameter
One thing I’ve been very curious about is what is meant by
"scalp prestimulation" which seems to have such an impact
on the effectiveness of these studies?
I’ve not been able to find any documentation on what this
means, anyone know of any documentation on this topic?
» However it’s unclear to me if the increased hairs in the 30+ micron count
» are NEWLY formed hairs or formally smaller hairs which have increased in
» diameter.
very interesting.
Probably, the “new” hairs int he 30+ micron group come from the 30- micron group. Thus, the 30- micron group gets smaller. In principle, the overall count should stay the same. But if any of the 30- micron hairs die, then the overall count gets reduced.
I think this is what happened in some trialists: some of the 30- micron hairs died, and others were rejuvenated up into the 30+ micron group, increasing the 30+ count. The overall count was decreased, while the 30+ count was increased. No new hairs were really formed in these trialists. It makes sense. And lets remember that these are the worst cases. In the other cases, the overall count was increased, meaning new hairs were really formed.
Well, if this analysis is correct (I think it is), then TRC would not be as bad as I thought.
The overall take rate is a very significant figure. 100 injections produce an overall increase of 40 hairs. This means 40 new hairs are created. Not bad at all. The 30- micron group is increased by 22 hairs, and the 30+ micron group is increased by 18 hairs.
Probably 18 hairs are thickened from the 30- micron froup into the 30+ group, and 40 new hairs are created in the 30- micron group.
This is pretty good, considering that TRC is still pretty experimental.
If this is true, then I wonder why ICX is being so stupid, not publishing photos and not publishing more clear data. Something is very weird here.
» » However it’s unclear to me if the increased hairs in the 30+ micron
» count
» » are NEWLY formed hairs or formally smaller hairs which have increased
» in
» » diameter.
»
» very interesting.
» Probably, the “new” hairs int he 30+ micron group come from the 30- micron
» group. Thus, the 30- micron group gets smaller. In principle, the overall
» count should stay the same. But if any of the 30- micron hairs die, then
» the overall count gets reduced.
»
» I think this is what happened in some trialists: some of the 30- micron
» hairs died, and others were rejuvenated up into the 30+ micron group,
» increasing the 30+ count. The overall count was decreased, while the 30+
» count was increased. No new hairs were really formed in these trialists. It
» makes sense. And lets remember that these are the worst cases. In the other
» cases, the overall count was increased, meaning new hairs were really
» formed.
» Well, if this analysis is correct (I think it is), then TRC would not be
» as bad as I thought.
»
» The overall take rate is a very significant figure. 100 injections
» produce an overall increase of 40 hairs. This means 40 new hairs are
» created. Not bad at all. The 30- micron group is increased by 22 hairs,
» and the 30+ micron group is increased by 18 hairs.
» Probably 18 hairs are thickened from the 30- micron froup into the 30+
» group, and 40 new hairs are created in the 30- micron group.
» This is pretty good, considering that TRC is still pretty experimental.
» If this is true, then I wonder why ICX is being so stupid, not publishing
» photos and not publishing more clear data. Something is very weird here.
yea i was thinking along the same lines… it sounds plausible to me at least…
and yea something definately seems strange… however i imagine pictures might be very unimpressive due to the small testing area and perhaps results are not very visible…
nonetheless i’ve regained some hope that TRC might not be completely useless.
» » » However it’s unclear to me if the increased hairs in the 30+ micron
» » count
» » » are NEWLY formed hairs or formally smaller hairs which have increased
» » in
» » » diameter.
» »
» » very interesting.
» » Probably, the “new” hairs int he 30+ micron group come from the 30-
» micron
» » group. Thus, the 30- micron group gets smaller. In principle, the
» overall
» » count should stay the same. But if any of the 30- micron hairs die,
» then
» » the overall count gets reduced.
» »
» » I think this is what happened in some trialists: some of the 30- micron
» » hairs died, and others were rejuvenated up into the 30+ micron group,
» » increasing the 30+ count. The overall count was decreased, while the
» 30+
» » count was increased. No new hairs were really formed in these trialists.
» It
» » makes sense. And lets remember that these are the worst cases. In the
» other
» » cases, the overall count was increased, meaning new hairs were really
» » formed.
» » Well, if this analysis is correct (I think it is), then TRC would not
» be
» » as bad as I thought.
» »
» » The overall take rate is a very significant figure. 100 injections
» » produce an overall increase of 40 hairs. This means 40 new hairs are
» » created. Not bad at all. The 30- micron group is increased by 22
» hairs,
» » and the 30+ micron group is increased by 18 hairs.
» » Probably 18 hairs are thickened from the 30- micron froup into the 30+
» » group, and 40 new hairs are created in the 30- micron group.
» » This is pretty good, considering that TRC is still pretty experimental.
» » If this is true, then I wonder why ICX is being so stupid, not
» publishing
» » photos and not publishing more clear data. Something is very weird
» here.
»
» yea i was thinking along the same lines… it sounds plausible to me at
» least…
» and yea something definately seems strange… however i imagine pictures
» might be very unimpressive due to the small testing area and perhaps
» results are not very visible…
»
» nonetheless i’ve regained some hope that TRC might not be completely
» useless.
the testing area is small, but under the microscope it gets big enough to be impressive if the results are good. the new hairs can be pointed out. definitely, a photo is always worthy.
» » Didn’t Histogen publish photo a couple weeks ago? That didn’t mean all
» » that much either, many couldn’t tell what actuall grew in the photos.
» Since
» » Intercytex only treated a small area, whatever photos they have will be
» » like Histogen’s anyway. Dont get me wrong, I want to see photos, but now
» i
» » realize that even if they publish photos it can still be very vague as
» to
» » how effective the treatment really is, these small scale trials will
» never
» » have photos like a hair transplant before and after showing clear
» increase
» » in density and coverage.
»
» Yes, Histogen published high quality photos and I praise them for that.
» The problem is that the before and after photos were difficult to compare
» because hairlength was different and there was an offset between the two
» photos. Also, the improvement in hair numbers was low, and it was tested on
» a hairy area. Anyway, photos were very high quality, and are much more
» valuable than those crappy ICX pieces of cryptic text in the reports.
» Sorry, but ICX is crap. Histogen has a different attitude, although I am
» afraid the results so far are poor.
Yea at first the Histogen photo looked good but after careful observation, it is actually quite difficult to evaluate if the existing hair simply grew long in the after photo. That was disappointing not being able to tell one way or another.
» One thing I’ve been very curious about is what is meant by
» “scalp prestimulation” which seems to have such an impact
» on the effectiveness of these studies?
»
» I’ve not been able to find any documentation on what this
» means, anyone know of any documentation on this topic?
If I remember well, Kemp said in an interview it was a powerful abrasive or something like that.
» » One thing I’ve been very curious about is what is meant by
» » “scalp prestimulation” which seems to have such an impact
» » on the effectiveness of these studies?
» »
» » I’ve not been able to find any documentation on what this
» » means, anyone know of any documentation on this topic?
»
» If I remember well, Kemp said in an interview it was a powerful abrasive
» or something like that.
This is an advertising site for paid
advertisers to showcase successful hair restoration results only. It is not the
mandate of this site to engage in the discussion of failed, unsuccessful
procedures, lawsuits, litigations, refunds or complaint cases. Surgical hair
restoration procedures carry risks. Please do thorough research, consult your
own physician and investigate a doctor's background carefully before making a
decision. By proceeding to use our site, you agree to abide by our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy at http://hairsite.com/terms-of-use/ where you can also find a list of HairSite's sponsoring physicians.
