Low fluence–high repetition rate diode laser hair removal 12‐month evaluation: Reducing pain and risks while keeping clinical efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: High fluence diode lasers with contact cooling have emerged as the mainstay modality for hair removal. However, the use of these devices is associated with pain and side effects, especially in patients with dark or tanned skin. A novel concept of depilation at low fluence using 810 nm diode laser has been introduced as a solution to these shortcomings. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the lasting efficacy and safety of low-level fluence 810 nm (15 J/cm(2) ) and high repetition rate (5 Hz) F1 Diode Laser™ therapy on hair reduction in patients with various skin types. STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomised, controlled, bilaterally paired within-patient, double-blind study compared low level fluence 810 nm (15 Joules/cm(2) ) laser diode therapy to nontreated shaved control areas on long-term hair reduction. Seventeen patients with skin type II-V were treated four times at 1 month intervals. Hair count was assessed monthly over 10 months using an objective computerised method. Safety and tolerability were assessed by adverse reactions monitoring. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences in hair count between treated and control sites were observed at each follow-up visit. The majority of patients reported a slight but bearable sensation of heat during the laser treatment, and transient erythema post-treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that laser hair removal with the F1 Diode Laser™ system was generally well tolerated, safe, and efficacious in this small sample study of patients with various skin types. After just four treatments, permanent hair reduction following one complete hair cycle has been shown. Controlled studies on larger groups of patients within each skin phototype are needed to confirm these promising results.
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 | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| 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".