Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laser therapy is a rapidly expanding new treatment modality for onychomycosis. OBJECTIVE: To review current and prospective laser systems for the treatment of onychomycosis. METHOD: We searched the PubMed database, the Food and Drug Administration 510(k) database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar for in vitro studies, peer-reviewed clinical trials, manufacturers' white papers, and registered clinical trials of laser systems indicated for the treatment of onychomycosis. All published clinical trials were assessed on a 20-point methodological quality scale. RESULTS: We identified three basic science articles, five peer-reviewed articles, three white papers, and four pending clinical trials, as well as numerous gray literature documents. The overall methodological score for the clinical trials was 9.1 ± 1.1, with peer-reviewed studies showing a higher score (9.8 ± 1.5) than white papers (7.5 ± 0.7). We also identified 11 commercial laser device systems of varying global availability. CONCLUSION: Laser therapy has been tested and approved as a cosmetic treatment only for onychomycosis. It cannot be recommended as a therapeutic intervention to eradicate fungal infection at this time as more rigorous randomized, controlled trials are required to determine if laser therapy is efficacious on par with oral and topical interventions.
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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".