MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104484629 · doi:10.1117/1.3477186

Importance of pulsing illumination parameters in low-level-light therapy

2010· article· en· W2104484629 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Barolet, Pascale Duplay, Hélène Jacomy, Mathieu Auclair

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Optics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLaser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine
Canadian institutionsArmand Frappier MuseumInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiophysicsMicrosecondMaterials scienceProcollagen peptidaseNitric oxideOpticsChemistryBiomedical engineeringMedicineMolecular biologyBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The influence of emission parameters in low-level-light therapy on cellular responses is not yet fully understood. This study assessed the impact of various light delivery modes on collagen production in human primary fibroblast cultured in monolayers after three treatments with red light-emitting diode illumination (630 nm, 8 J/cm(2)). Human type I collagen was measured in cell culture supernatants with procollagen type I C-peptide enzyme immunoassay. Results demonstrated that, 72 h post-baseline, specific microsecond pulsing patterns had a more favorable impact on the ability of fibroblasts to produce collagen de novo than comparative conditions of continuous wave, pulsed 50% duty cycle, and millisecond pulsing domains. The cascade of events leading to collagen production by red illumination may be explained by the photodissociation of nitric oxide from cytochrome c oxidase. Short and intermittent light delivery might enhance this cellular event.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical OpticsSame topicLaser Applications in Dentistry and MedicineFrench-language works237,207