Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laser applications have revolutionized the treatment of many cutaneous vascular anomalies. Because most of these lesions are congenital, the pediatric population has benefited primarily. In this article, the authors focus primarily on laser treatment options, realizing that this modality is but one part of an overall comprehensive plan of management options for these affected children. METHODS: The literature was reviewed and interjected into the authors' 20 years of experience in the use of lasers in the pediatric population. RESULTS: The use of different therapy modalities, such as the neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser, pulsed dye laser, erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser, and intense pulsed light systems, is discussed. Outcomes, risks, benefits, and treatment protocols vary for each entity and for each laser. The authors' results and those of others are presented. CONCLUSIONS: Lasers play a vital role as an adjunctive therapy or definitive therapy in many of the authors' pediatric patients. Anyone treating such patients should be well aware of lasers as a valuable tool.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".