Hair removal with a novel, low fluence, home-use intense pulsed light device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reduction in unwanted body and facial hair at various body sites of Fitzpatrick skin types I-III and the efficacy, comfort and safety of this treatment intended for home-use by the general public. METHODS: In this non-randomized study, 29 individuals were given three sequential weekly treatments on a total of 31 body and facial areas including the axilla, bikini area, abdomen, neck, chin and upper lip using a novel intense pulsed light device. All participants completed a simple self-assessment questionnaire, as well as an evaluation of pain/discomfort. RESULTS: The mean reduction in terminal hair counts was 47% at 4 weeks' follow-up and 41% at 6 months' follow-up after completing three sequential weekly treatments. Overall, 84% of participants showed a significant percentage of hair reduction (p<0.01) at the 6-month follow-up, with a mean of 51% (range 25-86%). No treatment-related side effects were reported, with little or no discomfort reported during the treatment. Only mild erythema was noted immediately post-treatment. In total, 85% of the participants were either pleased or very pleased with the results 1 month after the third treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In simulated consumer use, this home-use IPL demonstrated a significant, quantifiable and sustainable reduction in unwanted body and facial hair with minimal side effects.
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) | 0.000 | 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".