MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120655878 · doi:10.1080/14764170410029022

Effective epilation of white and blond hair using combined radiofrequency and optical energy

2004· article· en· W2120655878 on OpenAlexaff
Neil S. Sadick, Sharyn A. Laughlin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHair removalChinDermatologyIntense pulsed lightWhite lightDentistryAnatomyOptoelectronicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The present study examined the long-term photoepilatory effect on blond and white hair of a combined intense pulsed light (680-980 nm) device with a bipolar radiofrequency component producing electrical current at a depth of 4 mm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six adult women with white and blond hair (skin phenotypes I-V) were included in the study. The chin and upper lip were treated with four treatment sessions over 9-12 months with long-term follow-up performed at month 18 (6 months after the last treatment). The level of RF energy was 20 J/cm3, while optical fluences varied from 24 to 30 J/cm2. Hair counts and photographic evaluation of some sites were obtained at baseline, months 1, 3 and 5 and the final treatment session. RESULTS: An average hair removal of 48% was observed at month 18 (6 months following the final treatment session). A slightly higher photoepilatory efficiency was noted for blond hair (52%) versus white hair (44%) treatment sites. CONCLUSION: Combined radiofrequency and optical energy technology may produce effective photoepilation of blond and white hair phenotypes.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations60
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cosmetic and Laser TherapySame topicDermatologic Treatments and ResearchFrench-language works237,207