Comparison of Intense Pulsed Light with 1,927-nm Fractionated Thulium Fiber Laser for the Rejuvenation of the Chest
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rejuvenation of the aging chest is important to prevent noticeable disparities between the treated skin of the face and that of the untreated chest. OBJECTIVE: To compare a high-density thulium fiber laser (TFL)-based protocol for the rejuvenation of the aging chest with intense pulsed light (IPL). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a retrospective chart review comparing patients treated with IPL and those treated with TFL in combination with a quality-switched alexandrite laser and long pulsed dye laser. Blinded photographic assessment of overall improvement, rhytides, skin texture, dyspigmentation, and telangiectasia was performed. Patient satisfaction was assessed in a standardized follow-up survey. Cost and practicality were compared. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 45.8 days for IPL and 78.3 days for TFL, the two protocols had comparable clinical efficacy in achieving rejuvenation of the chest. Differences existed in terms of cost and practicality. CONCLUSION: TFL can be used at high density and in simultaneous combination with other targeted laser modalities to achieve rejuvenation of the aging chest. IPL achieves similar clinical efficacy. The choice between treatment modalities depends on physician and patient preferences.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it