Blue Light Laser Results in Less Vocal Fold Scarring Compared to <scp>KTP</scp> Laser in Normal Rat Vocal Folds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Preliminary investigations suggest that a novel blue light (BL) laser with a wavelength of 445 nm is comparable to the commonly utilized potassium titanyl phosphate (KTP) laser (532 nm) for treatment of various laryngeal pathologies. The objective of the current study is to make a direct histological comparison of the degree of vocal fold scarring after either BL or KTP laser treatment in an animal model. STUDY DESIGN: This was a randomized controlled study using rats. METHODS: Twenty-four Sprague-Dawley rats were randomized to BL or KTP laser treatment. Laser was delivered in non-overlapping pulses to normal rat vocal folds. Larynges in each group were harvested at three time points: post-operative day 1, 30, and 90. Three animals served as negative controls. The excised whole larynges were sectioned transversely and stained with hematoxylin/eosin and trichrome. Presence of subepithelial inflammation and protein deposition/fibrosis indicative of scarring were scored semi-quantitatively (from grade 1-3) by two pathologists blinded to treatment groups. RESULTS: Between-group comparison showed that both laser treatments resulted in significantly elevated subepithelial protein deposition/fibrosis 90 days after treatment compared to negative controls (BL: 2 ± 0; KTP: 2.67 ± 0.29; control: 1.17 ± 0.29; P < .05). However, the degree of protein deposition/fibrosis was significantly higher in the KTP group compared to the BL group (P = .016). Within-group comparison showed that the KTP group showed evidence of fibrosis as early as 30 days after treatment, which was not observed in the BL group. CONCLUSIONS: The current study suggests that the degree of scarring is significantly less after BL laser treatment compared to KTP in normal rat vocal fold tissue. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 131:853-858, 2021.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".