Treatment of inflammatory facial acne vulgaris: Comparison of the 1450‐nm diode laser and conventional physical treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of the 1450-nm diode laser in the treatment of inflammatory facial acne was evaluated by comparing it with conventional physical treatment. Seventeen patients received laser treatment on the right side of the face and conventional physical treatment on the other side. The two modalities were compared through photographs, inflammatory acne lesion counts, and a patient questionnaire. Clinical response was evaluated in 16 patients. Evaluation of baseline and follow-up photographs indicated that more improvement was obtained after laser treatment than by physical treatment in six patients. In two patients, physical treatment yielded better results than laser treatment. Equal effect was obtained in eight patients. All patients had a reduction in the inflammatory acne lesion count on the laser-treated side, which was statistically significantly greater on the laser-treated side compared with the side treated physically (p=0.039, Wilcoxon signed ranks test). By the assessment of patient satisfaction, seven patients preferred laser treatment, two patients preferred physical treatment and three patients found laser treatment equal to physical treatment. Questionnaire details could not be obtained in 4 patients. This study indicates that the 1450-nm diode laser is a new option for local treatment of acne.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".