A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial Evaluating the Efficacy of Nd:YAG 1064 nm Short-Pulse Laser Compared With Placebo in the Treatment of Toenail Onychomycosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Laser and light-based therapies have emerged as interesting treatment options with minimal side effects or contraindications to treat onychomycosis. Although increasing reports of successful treatment exist, few randomized, controlled, prospective studies have evaluated their true efficacy. We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial to evaluate the cure rate of onychomycosis treated by laser. METHODS: Fifty-one patients were randomized to receive 3 treatments (0, 12, 24 weeks) of 1064 Nd:YAG short-pulse (Cutera GenesisPlus) laser or placebo sham laser. The primary efficacy end point is the proportion of patients with a complete cure rate of the target great toenail at week 52. The secondary efficacy end points, at week 52, were treatment success defined as almost clear nail (≤ 10%) and negative mycology, completely or almost clear nail of the great toenail, negative mycology, improvement from one OSI severity class to another of the target toenail, and the difference in proximal nail plate clearance between baseline and week 52. RESULTS: No patient (0%) in the laser group and 2 patients (7.7%) in the placebo group reached the primary outcome. One patient (4.8%) in the laser group reached treatment success vs 2 (7.7%) in the placebo group. Only 6 patients (33%) had negative cultures in the laser group vs 11 (50%) in the placebo group. None of the secondary end points were met. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that 3 treatments of Nd:YAG 1064 nm laser at 3-month intervals were not effective to treat onychomycosis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".