Skin color and tissue thickness effects on transmittance, reflectance, and skin temperature when using 635 and 808 nm lasers in low intensity therapeutics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To examine the role of skin color and tissue thickness on transmittance, reflectance, and skin heating using red and infrared laser light. Methods Forty volunteers were measured for skin color and skin‐fold thickness at a standardized site near the elbow. Transmittance, reflectance and skin temperature were recorded for energy doses of 2, 6, 9, and 12 Joules using 635 nm (36 mW) and 808 nm (40 mW) wavelength laser diodes with irradiances within American National Standards Institute safety guidelines (4.88 mm diameter, 0.192 W/cm2 and 4.88 mm diameter, 0.214 W/cm2, respectively). Results The key factors affecting reflectance to an important degree were skin color and wavelength. However, the skin color effects were different for the two wavelengths: reflectance decreased for darker skin with a greater decrease for red light than near infrared light. Transmittance was greater using 808 nm compared with 635 nm. However, the effect was partly lost when the skin was dark rather than light, and was increasingly lost as tissue thickness increased. Dose had an increasing effect on temperature (0.7–1.6°C across the 6, 9, and 12 J doses); any effects of wavelength, skin color, and tissue thickness were insignificant compared to dose effects. Subjects themselves were not aware of the increased skin temperature. Transmittance and reflectance changes as a function of energy were very small and likely of no clinical significance. Absorption did not change with higher energy doses and increasing temperature. Conclusion Skin color and skin thickness affect transmittance and reflectance of laser light and must be accounted for when selecting energy dose to ensure therapeutic effectiveness at the target tissue. Skin heating appears not to be a concern when using 635 and 808 nm lasers at energy doses of up to 12 J and irradiance within American National Standards Institute standards. Photobiomodulation therapy should never exceed the American National Standards Institute recommendation for the maximum permissible exposure to the skin. Lasers Surg. Med. 50:291–301, 2018. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".