Analysis of gc83uk's Donor - 2nd & 3rd HST Procedures

[JJJJrS]

I've analyzed over 100 extraction points from gc83uk's 2nd and 3rd HST procedures.

There are a few new and very interesting things we can observe from this documentation:
- A before and after comparison of the extraction points. In other words, what does the follicular unit (FU) look like before extraction and how does it regenerate afterwards.
- The regeneration process for FUs which have been extracted multiple times.
- Which FUs HASCI targets for extraction.
- And of course, a regeneration rate for gc83uk's 2nd and 3rd procedures.

[JJJJrS]

Analysis of 2nd Procedure

Day 2

Month 9

'Day 2' shows extraction points from gc83uk's 2nd procedure. 'Month 9' is photo of gc83uk's donor 9 months after the 2nd procedure or 1 day before his 3rd procedure.

The blue, numbered circles are extraction points and the red lines/dots are a mapping of the surrounding hairs.

For more clarity, click and zoom in on an area of interest.

[JJJJrS]

Analysis of 3rd Procedure

Day 0

Day 2

Day 24

'Day 0' is a 'before picture' gc83uk took a day before his 3rd HST procedure. It is the exact same picture as the photo from the 2nd procedure labelled as 'Month 9'. 'Day 2' shows which follicular units HASCI extracted. Finally, "Day 24" shows the same donor area 24 days after the 3rd procedure.

The blue, numbered circles are extraction points from the 3rd procedure. The green, numbered dots are extraction points from the 2nd procedure (see analysis above). A blue circle with a green dot inside indicates that the follicular unit has been extracted during both gc's 2nd and 3rd procedure. Finally, the red lines/dots are a mapping of the surrounding hairs.

For more clarity, click and zoom in on an area of interest.

[JJJJrS]

At the moment, I haven't calculated any regeneration rates but feel free to analyse and make any observations on your own.

It's also my intention to eventually focus in on an a couple of specific areas as I did in the this preview. But again, if anybody wants to save me the trouble , feel free to do that as well.

If there's any clarification needed or mistakes, please point them out.

[534623]

At the moment, I haven't calculated any regeneration rates but feel free to analyse and make any observations on your own.

Really great and very clean work!

But why didn't you calculate the regeneration rates?

So in this case and with your 100 extractions sites analysis (twice as much as in my analysis) we have 2 separate regeneration rates:

- regenaration rate of gc's 2nd HST (100 extractions sites observed)
- regenaration rate of gc's 3rd HST (100 extractions sites observed - same area)

So it would be interesting to know, how much your 100 sites versus my 53 sites vary concerning the regeneration rate.

In my opinion, in future, the regeneration rates in general would be more accurate if you use THREE complete different areas - as I did in my own case:

- a small area with around 50 grafts or so above/behind the RIGHT ear;
- a small area with around 50 grafts or so above/behind the LEFT ear;
- a smal area with around 50 grafts or so in the occipital area;

In simple words, we do not need to check ALL extractions sites (1500 or more) of every procedure, as the joker Rassman suggests this BS. We simply do, what many others in other fields (factories etc) do when there are big numbers involved; namely - sample or so-called spot checks.
That means, if you get in all 3 different areas almost the same percentage (%), in this case, you can conclude that the MEAN percentage is THE regeneration percentage of the whole extraction procedure.

Furthermore, in the first step, it's completely irrelevant which type of graft regenerated; so in the first step we just talk about "REGENERATION SITES". A detailed analysis, whether or not an indentical graft regenerated, you can do and determine this later with other/additional photos, because you can't always determine this anyhow with just 1 photo.

[JJJJrS]

But why didn't you calculate the regeneration rates?

So in this case and with your 100 extractions sites analysis (twice as much as in my analysis) we have 2 separate regeneration rates:

- regenaration rate of gc's 2nd HST (100 extractions sites observed)
- regenaration rate of gc's 3rd HST (100 extractions sites observed - same area)

So it would be interesting to know, how much your 100 sites versus my 53 sites vary concerning the regeneration rate.

Anyone is free to do the calculations themselves since every point is circled and numbered. My intention is to calculate the regeneration rate for all extraction points in both procedures, for extraction points extracted multiple times, as well some type of comparison on the quality of the FUs, before and after extraction. For example how often does a multi-hair FU regenerate with less hairs or appear thinner. All of this requires some more work and I'm tired of it . But again, anyone is free to help me out and I can confirm the results later.

In my opinion, in future, the regeneration rates in general would be more accurate if you use THREE complete different areas - as I did in my own case:

- a small area with around 50 grafts or so above/behind the RIGHT ear;
- a small area with around 50 grafts or so above/behind the LEFT ear;
- a smal area with around 50 grafts or so in the occipital area;

In simple words, we do not need to check ALL extractions sites (1500 or more) of every procedure, as the joker Rassman suggests this BS. We simply do, what many others in other fields (factories etc) do when there are big numbers; namely - sample or so-called spot checks.
That means, if you get in all 3 different areas almost the same percentage (%), in this case, you can conclude that the MEAN percentage is THE regeneration percentage of the whole extraction procedure.

At this point, I probably won't do anymore donor counts for a while Very time consuming, but if people want to analyse other procedures in the future all they need are good photos and some patience.

If you look at this post, I recommended people to focus in on a smaller area. For example, anyone can isolate 50 or so FUs and post the cropped pictures of these areas.

My goal was to make it as complete as possible to give us the largest sample size possible.

Furthermore, in the first step, it's completely irrelevant which type of graft regenerated; so in the first step we just talk about "REGENERATION SITES". A detailed analysis, whether or not an indentical graft regenerated, you can do and determine this later with other/additional photos, because you can't always determine this anyhow with just 1 photo.

I think an analysis like this is very important. Of course, it's a little more subjective but a basic comparison is more than possible with the pictures I've analysed. I've also analysed gc's Day 20 photo which I can post also but I don't think it will give anymore clarification than the day 24 photo. Based on a preliminary look, I could see something like this raising more questions than answers.

[534623]

If you look at this post, I recommended people to focus in on a smaller area. For example, anyone can isolate 50 or so FUs and post the cropped pictures of these areas.

I recommend the same. Even just 30 grafts/extractions sites would be completely sufficient, IF you also do this with 2 additional and completely different areas, as suggested in my previous post.

Concerning "isolate":
It MUST be a clear defined AREA - not a cherry-picked one, or just cherry-picked extractions sites, scattered everywhere in the photo.
It MUST be like this - as for example:

This is what I call CLEAR DEFINED AREA. Most guys, who followed my analysis, they knew in advance which area I have chosen; namely, a simply randomly chosen area after day 1 and day 2 and day 3 etc. So up to day 5 or so, NOBODY could know what will actually happen in this clear defined area! - neither gc, nor myself nor someone else.
For example:
If it would have been my intention to fake the result, in this case, I would rather try to avoid to include the first 1-2 "hair-rows" at the buttom of the blue square (with number 3,4, 5 and 6), and instead of, I would simply make the area somewhat higher, where practically ALL hairs regenerated. So the percentage of "Regrowth" would be, of course, even somewhat HIGHER.

Furthermore, such a "cropped picture" as just posted - is actually completely USELESS! It is useless insofar, because in theory, YOU CAN fake such a small pic. Cropped photos, which are, in fact, comfortable for viewers on one hand, and just to show AT A GLANCE your result on the other hand, are just allowed, when the WHOLE photo (uncropped) is also attached (via link or whatever) so that viewers, if they wish, can also see "What's going on beyond this small area?" - THAT's the point.

[JJJJrS]

I agree with everything you wrote. I know people will look at the analysis and some might be overwhelmed. But my interest is entirely in accuracy and not with presentation. I want as much feedback and observations as possible right now.

I specifically decided to choose a large area to document for the reasons you wrote. I think with 100+ extraction points you get a sufficient sample size to get the most accurate results and nobody can accuse you of cherry-picking the area. In addition, I don't really have any plans to do something like this again, unless there's a very good reason, so I decided to make this as definitive and complete as possible.

Like I mentioned earlier, right now I would like hear people's observation. I've done all the boring, tedious analysis, now all I need is for someone to help me answer the original questions in this thread. All it really takes is opening the photos from the 3rd procedure and comparing the blue extraction points.

[JJJJrS]

Analysis of 3rd Procedure

Day 20

I've decided to include an additional picture from gc83uk's 3rd procedure, this one from Day 20. The hairs in this photo are longer but it should help with comparing the follicular units before and after extraction when combined with the Day 24 photo. For example, you can check how many hairs are in the FU before and after extraction and whether the hairs appear to be thinner or not.

I've made some minor adjustments to the photos, i.e., filled in some missing points, so please clear your cache if you want the very latest results.

[Vox]

Impressive work!

I have all the patience needed to calculate percentages etc. but not the time. I hope someone else will do it though.

You offer freely a great service to our bald(ing) community! Thank you for this.

[JJJJrS]

Statistics from 2nd Procedure

There's not a whole lot you can analyse with the 2nd procedure but my final regeneration rate is 80.5%.

So 80.5% of the extraction points regenerated hair.

[JJJJrS]

Statistics from 3rd Procedure

The final regeneration rate is 81%. So 81% of the extraction points regenerated hair.

Of the follicular units that did regenerate, 41% regenerated with less hairs or were visibly thinner. Nevertheless, a number of 4-hair and 3-hair follicular units did regenerate in the same configuration and robustness after extraction (see extraction points 61, 63, 73, 74, 80, 101, 115, 127). In total, 47% of the extracted follicular units regenerated in the same configuration with no loss of hairs or thickness.

21 follicular units were extracted during both procedures. The regeneration rate for these hairs was 76%. Of these follicular units, which were extracted multiple times, 44% regenerated in the same configuration with no loss of hairs or thickness.

[gc83uk]

JJJJrS, thank you so much for your effort and time you have given, it must have taken you at least a day!

I will take a closer look this evening at the photos and comment on the specifics which you have concluded.

Thanks again.

[534623]

... and all data (2 HST procedures) just within 9 month and all in all 3 HST procedures just within 15 month - and always extractions in the same area!

[JJJJrS]

JJJJrS, thank you so much for your effort and time you have given, it must have taken you at least a day!

I will take a closer look this evening at the photos and comment on the specifics which you have concluded.

Thanks again.

Not a problem gc. Without your excellent photos, none of this would be possible so I owe you for that. Also IM for his original analysis of your donor which is the basis for this work.

I've been working on the analysis on and off for the past couple of weeks and all the snow over here has given me an opportunity to finish faster than I expected. Overall, it's not something I really plan to do again but I think I've made this analysis as complete and accurate as I possibly can.