Talk:Pattern hair loss/Archive 1

Cleanup

Added cleanup tag to Evolution of Androgenic Alopecia, as it reads more like a lecture than an encyclopedia entry. I don't know enough about the subject matter to make changes but something should be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.101 (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

genetic

Male pattern baldness is a genetic disorder? Someone should probably explain that. . . . 68.6.85.167 08:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well it is, in a sense. Sure, it's not a serious genetic disorder like Cystic Fibrosis or Sickle-cell anaemia. But it is inherited and it could be considered a disorder in so much that it causes effects that aren't really meant to happen. --Burbster 17:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There are social theorists who argue that it was 'meant to happen.' Thus, the reason for the pattern in men while women's hair loss is diffuse. Perhaps 'genetic trait' would be better term. Perhaps there's an advantage to removing older men from mate competition, preserving them and allowing them to be parents rather than possibly getting killed? Baldness is correlated with other serious disorders, though.

Small Correction: "are X linked and thus inherited from one's mother's father" should simply read "... from one's mother". Men inherit X linked traits from their mothers, but since women get an X chromosome from both parents a gene on a man's X chromosome could be inherited from either of the man's maternal grandparents. Reference: Genes VII by Benjamin Lewin.

The Two X chromosome thing is rubbish because of the existence of Barr bodies and Male and Female types of hair loss have different mechanisms one is mediated through progesterone the other through DHT. Secondly Females inactivate second X chromosomes as barr bodies so even if they had two copies of the gene on both chromosomes it wouldn't make any difference, as the gene is silenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.203.98 (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

removed

Removed People with this Condition... the two that were listed do not have androgenetic alopecia, they have alopecia universalis. There IS a difference. MMoyer 18:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

X and Y

I think the comments about a male person's X chromosome being inherited from his mother and the Y chromosome being inherited from his father, are over-simplified to the point of being misleading. A male will inherit 22 X chromosomes from his father and 1 Y chromosome. Have the genes responsible for Androgenetic alopecia been shown to be in the gonosome (23rd pair)? Sledge68 19:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, Sledge68, that is simply incorrect... a male will inherit 22 autosomal chromosomes from his father and a Y chromsome; the other 22 autosomal chromosomes and the X will come from his mother. Blackmetalbaz 12:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Castration as a possible treatment

Should castration be listed as a treatment? Maybe I'm being squeamish but I don't think it's a treatment that anyone would undergo(at least not for baldness). Are there any known instances of indiviuals undergoing castration to specifically halt the onset of baldness? Otherwise I think that should be removed. Donquigleone (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No, baldness has nothing to do with testosterone--250GP (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Testosterone applied to the scalps of non human primates has been shown to induce baldness, and in vitro applied to human hair inhibits the growth. Testosterone is the substrate for dihydrotestosterone which is the main source of androgenic stimulus triggering the onset of miniaturization in AGA. Much reduced testosterone => much reduced dihydrotestosterone. Observation of castrates is in fact where the ANDROGEN part of androgenetic alopecia comes from.68.34.243.9 (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Effectiveness of Saw Palmetto vs Finesteride

Why is Saw Palmetto considered less effective than finesteride? Saw Palmetto inhibits both isoforms of 5alpha-reductase. Finesteride inhibits only one. --Ryan Wise (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Source for the claim SP inhibits both? But probably a different binding affinity for the enzyme.68.34.243.9 (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Please help!

هل يمكن أن يحدث الصلع الذكوري أو الوراثي بدون تراجع خط الشعر الأمامي؟ هل هناك فرق بين الصلع الوراثي والذكوري؟ هل يمكن أن يحدث الصلع الأنثوي إلى رجل؟ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.227.231 (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

وذكر الصلع الوراثي هي الشيء نفسه.78.148.107.147 (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Horrible wording

I don't like how one part of this section is worded "Androgenic alopecia (also known as androgenetic alopecia or alopecia androgenetica) is a common form of hair loss in both male and female humans" Male and female humans? As opposed to all the other humans?76.226.115.48 (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is absolutely false

There are many mistakes in this article, here is some of the most ridicolus mistakes:

1) Androgens (especially testosterone with the UNIQUE exception of DHT) have nothing to do with baldness. It was an old theory, now it is clear that men or women with baldness have LOW TESTOSTERONE LEVELS (I will insert the articles), and this is clear watching the typical body of bald men with the typical muscle mass deficiency, instead the FIRST free testosterone effect is building of muscle mass

2) It is written that bald men have more testosterone, FALSE! It is true the contrary, bald men have low testosterone levels (hypogonadism) and exactly for this reason have often diabetes mellitus

3) It is written that IGF-I (according to an old citation, in pefect contrast to new scientific articles) has a bad effect on hairs, absolutely false, bald men or women have low IGF/I levels, and the decrease of IGF-I levels lead to baldness, alwais! IGF-I IS THE MOST IMPORTANT HORMONE FOR HAIRS!

4) If the testosterone and IGF-I levels were linked to baldness, aged people should be protected from baldness (because aged people have andropause and somatopause), it is true the contrary of course

5) According to this article it seems that women are partially procted from baldness due to estrogens, that's FALSE! Aged women have less estrogens than old men. Women have usually more IGF-I than men, this is the true reason

I also recommed to use new citations. I will insert later new citations.--250GP (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've remod ridicolous claims about links testosterone-baldness, I've inserted some true sentence and later I will insert other citations--250GP (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You've made some very bold changes to the article based on a single reference. I don't have access to the article you've cited, but from the text in the abstract, it does not appear that the article supports your claims. The purpose of the cited study was not to find a cause of androgenic alopecia, but to establish whether there is a correlation between AGA and other health risks. The established cause of AGA is a sensitivity of hair follicles to DHT -- the fact that the control group in the study had higher testosterone levels does not disprove this established hypothesis. I'm going to revert your changes for now. Please discuss them here at greater length before reintroducing them. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Instead it disprove, in 2010, not in 1900...it is clear that bald people have less testosterone than normal, I will revert the edit, and tomorrow I will insert other publications (no problem to find other citations if you want)...it is absurd that in 2010 there are people who really think that bald people have more testosterone and are more viril...--250GP (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The belief that bald people have more testosterone may well be false -- their follicles are simply more sensitive to the testosterone that they have. However, the study you cite does not claim that bald people have less testosterone. It claims that in the limited sample of 160 men in that one study, that the free testosterone level was higher in the control group than in the case group. This is not a sufficient sample to make broad claims. You keep claiming you will add more citations tomorrow. There is no need to rush to add unverified claims. When you have the citations you need to verify your point, Wikipedia will still be here and you can add your information then. Until you have proper verification, please do not add poorly sourced claims and misinterpretations. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, later I will insert the citations...but the belief that bald men are more sensitive to testosterone is absurd (it means that with low testosterone levels they have a lot of muscle mass. this is obviously false). Testosterone has no negative effects on hairs (that's perfectly established), testosterone, unlike DHT, is primarly an anabolic hormone, it means it increases proteic synthesism, therefore hair tissue. DHT is the inactive form of testosterone (at least from an anabolic point of view). If the nonbald men have more free testosterone than bald men it proves that bald men have less testosterone (for this reason thay are bald and they easily have erectile disfunction, diabetes mellitus and osteoporosis).

I also would like to insert informations about the hormones that can really cause baldness (cortisol and somatostatine) --250GP (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

 DoneThe current revision has cleared up this dispute with referenced inline citations. Ramwithaxe talk 03:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"DHT is the inactive form of testosterone" DHT is NOT in any way inactive and if you're going to assert it has no anabolic activity you should support that with something more solid than "obviously absurd." Original research is explicitly a violation of wikipedia policy. DHT has an affinity for androgen receptors several times higher than that of testosterone as well as non-androgen-receptor mediated anabolic action. People who don't produce DHT don't have male pattern baldness. Original research aside for a moment and addressing the topic in general, you have to be careful about confusing correlation and causation. Many metabolic problems will result in lower SHBG and increased conversion of T -> DHT via an increase in mean free androgens. However that correlation between higher DHT and metabolic problems does not indicate that high DHT is the cause of those problems, simply a symptom. Similarly, it's important to look at total androgen profiles and not just testosterone. There's a reason that doctors use blood tests rather than spit tests when looking at androgen profiles, even though the first is more invasive. --Ryan W (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Bald men have LOWER testosterone levels

According to the most recent pubblications, bald men have lower testosterone levels (hypogonadism) than non-bald men, and this can lead to the typical hypogonadism-related diseases (diabetes mellitus, osteoporosis, cardiocirculatory diseases, dementia and so on), therefore I've inserted two citations that confirm this.

I also would suggest to concentrate arguments to hormones that strongly affect hair life (such as somatotropin and cortisol)--250GP (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That report is already cited in the article, but the conclusions you draw are not the conclusions drawn by the report. 12:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you say EXCATLY what is mispresented and what is not present in the articles? Moreover the report you are talking present in the current false and pubblicitary article--250GP (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I did some little change, now it is excatly like the articles--250GP (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is on topic, but I agree with what I think is 250's premise: Testosterone (as opposed to its metabolite DHT), to my knowledge, has never been shown to have an effect on hair loss in any credible research.

Take, for example, the males in the Dominican Republic who are born with a genetic mutation rendering them incapable of producing the 5ar enzyme (which is the enzyme Propecia / Proscar (finasteride) and Avodart(dutasteride) block), and, as a result, cannot metabolize Testosterone into Di-Hydro Testosterone (DHT).

The do not get AGA / MPB.

Men who take steroids (Testosterone / Androgens) can still reverse AGA / MPB when taking 5ar-blockers. This is yet more evidence that testosterone alone is not causative in MPB / AGA.67.84.209.60 (talk)

Just my opinion based on facts. 67.84.209.60 (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done The correct facts regarding male hormonal profile in androgenic hair loss have been listed. Ramwithaxe talk 03:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Environmental Factors?

I need to qualify the statement about "genetic and environmental" factors causing AGA / MPB. It is genetic. There may be some credible research, for instance in identical twins, that I am not aware of, that demonstrates that environmental factors have a significant role in AGA. Assuming there isn't I'd like to qualify that statement. 67.84.209.60 (talk)

The sentence now reads: A variety of genetic and, possibly, environmental factors likely play a role in causing androgenic alopecia. I wont say that environmental factors contribute to or exacerbate it, but the fact remains that in the absence of the wrong genes no environmental factor has, to date, been proven to trigger AGA / MPB. 67.84.209.60 (talk)

And, having re-read it, I still think that sentence is too conciliatory to the (as yet hypothetical) dissenting view. It still seems to allude to some possible causative role of environmental factors in MPB / AGA. I'm open to the possibility that external stimuli can contribute to AGA, but I know of no evidence of environmental factors causing AGA.67.84.209.60 (talk)

 Done The article more clearly explains the diathesis stress model of androgenic alopecia. Ramwithaxe talk 03:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Evolutionary Material

You guys, the stuff posted here is just awful. Someone cited a non-peer reviewed article from some guy in India in the wackjob journal "Medical Hypotheses". There is no science here, please someone correct this. It's embarassing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.101.118 (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Rewritten. Ramwithaxe talk 18:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

"Theories of male pattern baldness"

Has it ever been raised as a suggestion by the academic community that the vertex and lateral hair loss positions on the male scalp are places in which hair would be pulled out where another would grip onto longer hair during fights? And maybe the social cue is that one is 'battle hardened' without being so, with age? 74.209.54.156 (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done No. Ramwithaxe talk 18:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Neanderthal Admixture and the Androgen Receptor Gene

At 1:48 in this video lecture, anthropologist John Hawks says the following:

The androgen receptor on the X chromosome is the receptor for testosterone, and that has a huge effect on different elements of the body, both in men and in women. One of the things that it does is it, for some people, increases the likelihood of baldness. And so my version of the androgen receptor, I know, is likely to correlate with hair loss after the age of about 25 as it turns out. This is the part of my genome that I share with neanderthals. Among many others. Does that mean that neanderthals maybe, like me, had hair loss? It could be, but we can't yet say because we can't look yet at that phenotypic level. In order to do that it's gonna take comparing how different people with different copies of these actually map out.

On page 115 of the supplemental PDF of the paper 'A Draft Sequence of the Neanderthal Genome' (2010) the gene SRD5A2 is listed as one of many genes with a neanderthal variant in modern humans. This gene apparently "catalyzes the conversion of the male sex hormone testosterone into the more potent androgen, dihydrotestosterone."

This can be added to the main article, right? Slartibartfastibast (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done If you can find the pubmed corollary please add the reference, but I believe the factual content you discuss is already present within the article. Ramwithaxe talk

Citations for Hair loss, Age and Hormones Paradox

Where are the citations for the entire "Hair loss, Age and Hormones Paradox" section??? All those theories about "hormone ratios" sound very controversial to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.200.25 (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Your instincts were correct, reviewing references, there were factual errors. I have rewritten the section and added references. Ramwithaxe talk 18:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hair loss and exercise

Cleaned up and added a number of references to exercise section. The following sentence bothers me, as it is unreferenced, and I was unable to find the "Physician's Study" that was referred to.

Large scale studies have not found consistent significant effect of exercise on hair loss. For example the Physician's Study, which measured hair loss and physical activity at large numbers through self report.[citation needed]

Anyone know where this is from? Ramwithaxe (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up - the closest thing I could find was the Rancho Bernardo study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2642646/pdf/nihms22997.pdf but it is self report, but related to bone mineral density. Can anyone confirm? Ramwithaxe talk 03:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As compared to those who were not balding, a significantly greater proportion of balding women used glucocorticosteroids and estrogen replacement (0.4% vs. 4.1%, p < 0.01, and 50.7% vs. 68.8%, p=0.017, respectively). Among both men and women, there were no significant differences (p’s > 0.10) by premature graying or balding status in alcohol use, smoking, exercise, and use of calcium supplements, diuretics, thyroid medication use, or in men, use of glucocorticosteroids.

Ramwithaxe talk 04:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, the entire section fits poorly with the rest of the article. In the entire section, the word "alopecia" is mentioned but once, "balding" only twice, and "hair" a meagre three times. The bulk of it is dedicated to a rambling and tangential discussion of the effect of exercise on hormone levels. Yes, this condition is related to androgen levels. But unless more sources are added that can demonstrate the relationship between exercise and hair loss specifically, the section as it is presented in this particular article is more or less WP:OR. This would be fine in the introductory section of a scientific paper or in our article on Androgens, perhaps, but it is not directly related to the topic of this article. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Restoring former text to edit list because of hundreds of edits by one editor.

One editor (chantoke) has made hundreds of edits in last few weeks, driving former edits below 500 edit limit for ready listing. This prevents other editors from seeing exactly what changes he has made. Maybe they are OK, maybe not. Also arguable WP:ownership of articles. But we need to be able to readily track any such changes. I have thus done a manual revert followed by a revert of my revert to refresh the position of the former text on the edit list. Belton1 (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur. Perhaps the editor does not understand that the sandbox should be used for such edits so that other editors can know what is going on. Hundreds of edits are confusing enough. But this and no edit summaries makes it very difficult to understand just what has occurred. Could be some kind of spam or vandalism, but at first glance, looks at least superficially OK. I will try to review and fix any problems as time allows. Drjames1 (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Not spam or vandalism, just editing the article when I had time. Will be better about edit summaries. Chantoke (talk) 09:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Re-entry

I am going to re-enter my article. Basically, I rewrote the background, diagnosis, treatment, management sections. I also included a section on PCOS, rewrote the Darwinism section as it was not referenced and inaccurate. I also expanded the section on stem cells. Please let me know if any feedback here or on my talk page. Chantoke (talk) 09:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Saw Palmetto

Why was saw palmetto extract (beta sitosterol) removed as an alternative treatment? It was there a few years ago. It's effectiveness is documented. [1] While it's not as effective as finesteride at the dosage studied here it is documented to be effective against vertex balding and its mechanism of action is well supported, in vitro. Further, it isn't absorbed by the prostate the way that finesteride is. While this means it can't prevent T -> DHT conversion in the prostate (possibly why its results were inferior, despite inhibiting two isoforms of 5alpha-reductase), it also means that beta sitosterol doesn't interfere with prostatic PSA secretion. So in some ways, it's more targeted in its action. Also, it's typically cheaper than finesteride.

Proposed merge

I have proposed a merge from baldness to androgenic alopecia, with any remaining content merged into alopecia. Please comment here, on the talk page for Baldness. A concurrent discussion is underway on Wikiproject Medicine, available here.

This merge seeks to reduce the duplication in content and improve the overall quality of Wikipedia. LT90001 (talk) 11:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Tabloid sensationalism

In the future and alternative therapies section it mentioned that PGD2 is present in scalps of balding men and treatment based on this could come out in 2014. This is not true, Dr Cotsarelis (the professor who discovered this said that clinical trials could begin in 2014) reiterated this after these articles were published. 80.43.13.144 (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Help

I found the following sentance extremely difficult to parse. I think it's important to the article, but I have no idea what it's trying to convey --

Free testosterone decreases in men by age 80 to levels double that of a woman at age 20. About 30% of normal male testosterone level, the approximate level in females, is not enough to induce alopecia; 60%, closer to the amount found in elderly men, is sufficient.69.65.91.78 (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

23 October 2015 (addition by different user) Okay after reading all the sources, this is what I gather this person is trying to say (read the bold, un-bolded text is just informal info provided to make sure a greater number of editors are able to understand what I'm saying overall, as it will still need re-wording somehow):

Although we find a trend of increasing alopecia with decreasing testosterone, actual numerical levels, measured commonly in ng/dL, alone do not offer much information on predictability of hair loss progression of a single individual. By age 80 [where advanced alopecia is more common than not], free circulating testosterone in men has decreased to half that of a normal value for men - yet, the quantity in ng/dL, after this 50% drop, would still exceed free testosterone levels [in ng/dL] of a normal young female at 20 years old by at least double [all people generally have the maximum they'll ever have around age 18-20, and we don't normally see alopecia at age 20 in anyone]. In men, a drop to 60% that of normal is more than sufficient enough to predict onset of alopecia. However, even if men were to drop to 30% of normal male testosterone levels, this same level for a female wouldn't be low enough to even induce alopecia at all.

IOW: Anyone can assume a 20 year old female in her prime would not yet experience even beginning stages of hair loss, yet she would still have significantly less testosterone than the oldest man alive, at which age it's practically a guarantee he has undergone some degree of hair loss. We cannot say any numerical value in ng/dL is "required" or "a cutoff" to initiate hair loss in general. Unlike blood pressure, diabetes, cholesterol - even if it varies a bit between the sexes, we can give pretty precise/cutoff values where resulting disease generally begins. Based on that fact, the only thing we are able generalize is that there is a non-numerical TREND human beings follow, as far as testosterone levels goes, that predicts onset/progression of alopecia.

BUT I COULD BE SO WRONG - it took me awhile to gather all this, and it's possible I have lost something(s) in translation at some point in all that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AggieRx (talk • contribs) 10:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The UVB-Collector Hypothesis of Androgenetic Alopecia (AGA)

A new hypothesis should be added to the section "Other theories". Unfortunately, at this moment, the text of this hypothesis is only available in German language. I will give a short summary of this new hypothesis (first published in July 2013):

- AGA creates a natural UVB-collector on a man's head.

- AGA has been selected during human evolution because the bald head enhances sperm motility in early spring. Therefore, from an evolutionary point of view, AGA presents a selective advantage in an environment with strong seasonal variation in the intensity of natural UVB radiation.

- The hair thinning process of AGA is an active process that is triggered by UVB radiation (at a wavelength of 295 nanometers) that hits the scalp under the condition of a low seasonal serum level of 25(OH)D in early spring. This explains both the shape of the "receding hairline" at the beginning and the typical "horseshoe" shaped pattern in the end stage of male pattern baldness.

- The shape of the bald area ("horseshoe" curve) can be calculated by means of a simple mathematical model (isocline model) based on the physical properties (e.g. angle of incidence, intensity of radiation, wavelength) of natural UVB radiation.

The "UVB-collector hypothesis" is similar to Péter Kabai's hypothesis, but different in two points. --78.42.96.77 (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on the UVB-collector hypothesis, a 3D simulation has been created in order to visualize the area on the scalp where the concentration of previtamin D₃ reaches its maximum in early spring. The yellow crest is a result of the calculation by means of the isocline model. It is now becoming obvious, why the receding hairline has such a special shape and even the occipital hairline can be calculated by this mathematical model. --2A02:8071:2285:9F01:49:4C60:E70:D7AF (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Are there any high quality sources per WP:MEDRS? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The connection between Vitamin D and sperm motility has been discovered by Martin Blomberg Jensen. From my point of view, the quality of his articles is high enough:

Blomberg Jensen M: Vitamin D and male reproduction. Nature Reviews Endocrinology 2014; 10, 175-186.

Blomberg Jensen M: Vitamin D metabolism, sex hormones, and male reproductive function. Reproduction 2012; 144, 135-152.

Blomberg Jensen M, Dissing S: Non-genomic effects of vitamin D in human spermatozoa. Steroids 2012; 77, 903-909.

Blomberg Jensen M, Bjerrum PJ, Jessen TE, Nielsen JE, Joensen UN, Olesen IA, Petersen JH, Juul A, Dissing S, Jørgensen N: Vitamin D is positively associated with sperm motility and increases intracellular calcium in human spermatozoa. Hum Reprod. 2011 Jun; 26(6): 1307-17. --141.3.198.150 (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Some information about the connection between natural UVB radiation and Vitamin D production in the human skin can be found in the following articles:

Kimlin MG: Geographic location and vitamin D synthesis. Molecular Aspects of Medicine 2008 Dec; 29(6): 453-461. DOI: 10.1016/j.mam.2008.08.005

Maxwell JD: Seasonal variation in vitamin D. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 1994; 53, 533-543. --141.3.198.206 (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello "Doc James", I noticed that you have removed the citation of [www.omicsonline.org/scientific-reports/srep137.php Iyanda's article]. I would like to know the reason why. --141.3.196.1 (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

That last one is a primary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a good source [2] but were does it mention AGA? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Recently, Fawzi et al. published a study on the role of vitamin D receptors (VDR) in alopecia areata (AA) and androgenetic alopecia (AGA):

M M T Fawzi et al.: Assessment of vitamin D receptors in alopecia areata and androgenetic alopecia. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 0, 1-6 DOI: 10.1111/jocd.12224.

The authors found significantly lower concentrations of VDR in serum and tissue of patients with AA and AGA. --2A02:8071:2289:2801:95E9:9743:D662:C7CF (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Title of article

Is not the Wikipedia policy to title articles by their most common name? I think most readers would search for "male pattern baldness" and not "androgenic alopecia". Any thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There are already several redirect pages, e. g. Male pattern baldness and Androgenetic alopecia. --141.3.198.250 (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with "Joseph Spadaro", "male pattern baldness" would be a better title, 95% of the population doesn't even know what "androgenic alopecia" is or what it means RomanGrandpa (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

When did this go from "male pattern baldness" to "pattern hair loss"? "Hair loss" may sound better than "baldness" but "pattern hair loss" is way too generic. Any large mammal can exhibit hair loss in some unspecified "pattern," for various reasons, while this article is about the specific "male pattern" baldness seen in humans, chimps, and a few other primate species. Yes, it is also about "female pattern baldness"--and I suspect that is why the "male" part was dropped--but it should be noted that this definition is less effective since the female condition is characterized by a less-marked pattern. My suggestion would be to restore "male pattern hair loss" as article title and then use "female hair loss" or a better synonym for either a specific section of this article or one of its own. I believe most readers come to this page to learn about the male or female condition and are not necessarily interested in reading about the other, unless they are specifically looking for differences between the two. Kileytoo (talk) 06:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

"vertex" link disaster

"vertex" is linked to Calvaria (skull) which does not contain the word "vertex" at all. Jidanni (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Also even if "vertex" equals Calvaria (skull) one can't figure out if you are talking about the front, back, or top of the head, unless you are a M.D. maybe. Jidanni (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Below it we find another " vertex, or calvaria, " which has the link again, and now finally reveals that indeed you mean "equals", but still doesn't make clear front, back or top. English please! Jidanni (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Why not link to Vertex (anatomy)?!?! Jidanni (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Other animals

The Other animals section doesn't mention macaques, which are only mentioned at top. Jidanni (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity in myths section needs expansion

Ethnicity is only mentioned once. Please add an e.g.,

“ Chinese don't suffer from hair loss ”

and debunk it. Jidanni (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Prescription Medications as Cause

There is a single, vague mention of medication as a possible cause for alopecia in women (the end of one sentence at this time). I know from years of experience/education as a pharmacist, some medications (such as the popular SSRI fluoxetine) are a frequent and common cause of hair loss, especially when taken at higher doses, but I don't have any numerical values or percentages with sources at this moment. IMO, a "Prescription Medications" sub-section should be added to "Causes" section. I'll get right on it, and if anyone "passing through" already has info to contribute - even better.

The proposed sub-section would ideally list/describe specific drug classes, drug names, and/or mechanisms of action found to be causes, perhaps accompanied by associated risk values and/or occurrence/frequency among the population actively on the medication (compared to entire hair loss population). — Preceding unsigned comment added by AggieRx (talk • contribs) 07:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

MPB is a disease?

Is this really a "disease"? This language, I think, is nonsense and extremist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.51.217.118 (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Disease

A disease?? I don't think so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.51.217.118 (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

young kids who have already gone bald

i have recently seen kids with male pattern hair loss. is there a separate article for that or should it be added to this?84.212.73.96 (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

How young? Doc James (talk · contribs · email)

as young as 2 year i believe.84.212.73.96 (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

You have refs? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't an article on PATTERN hair loss explain WHY there's a pattern?

The "Causes" section of this article fails to offer a causal explanation for the characteristic horseshoe pattern observed in males. That seems to be a glaring omission. If there are different properties among different regions of the scalp accounting for the sparing of side/back hair, those properties ought to be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.144.170.161 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)