A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Randomized Evaluation of the Effect of Low-Level Laser Therapy on Venous Leg Ulcers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on chronic venous leg ulcers (VLUs). A double-blinded prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare incidence of complete wound closure, ulcer size and pain reduction in patients randomized to 24 treatments of placebo or LLLT (635 nm) over 12 weeks. Patients presented with a 6-week history of VLUs ranging in size from 5 to 20 cm 2 . Venous origin was confirmed by Doppler ultrasound and an ankle brachial index of 0.8 or greater. Of 24 patients, 23% of the test group (n = 13) and 18% of placebo group (n = 11) achieved complete wound closure. At 12 weeks, patients in test and placebo groups had a mean surface area reduction of 6.26 cm 2 ( P < .0001) and 6.72 cm 2 ( P < .005), respectively, and a mean pain score decrease of 43.54 points ( P < .0001) and 25.73 points ( P = .002) respectively. Differences between groups was not statistically significant for wound closure ( P = 1.0) or ulcer size ( P = .80). Mean ulcer pain was significantly reduced from initiation of treatment compared with 4 weeks’ follow-up after 12 weeks with LLLT ( P < .01). Within the limitations of the study, LLLT may not have early effects as an adjunctive therapy to wound healing of VLUs, but LLLT may have delayed effects on VLU healing and associated pain, which requires further study.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".