MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3168284016 · doi:10.1007/s10103-021-03362-6

Periocular rejuvenation using a unique non-ablative long-pulse 2940 nm Er:YAG laser

2021· article· en· W3168284016 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLasers in Medical Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Association of Gastroenterology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRejuvenationAblative caseLaserEr:YAG laserMedicinePhotoagingWrinklePulse (music)Facial rejuvenationPatient satisfactionSurgeryMaterials scienceDermatologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The periocular region is challenging for cosmetic laser surgeons. Surgery and laser resurfacing have traditionally been used to correct periorbital lines and wrinkles. Although effective, the associated downtime with these methods has made many people reluctant to decide for such treatments. More recently, the non-ablative long-pulse 2940 nm Er:YAG laser is being used to improve the structure and function and hence the appearance of skin in the periorbital region. The objective of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of long-pulse 2940 nm Er:YAG laser for non-ablative treatment of periorbital static wrinkles and skin laxity. This is a prospective analysis of 30 patients treated for periorbital rejuvenation using three sessions of non-ablative long-pulse Er:YAG laser over a 3-month period. All patients were assessed according to Fitzpatrick’s classification of periorbital wrinkles to class I, II, or III and were treated with 2940 nm Er:YAG laser using a fluence of 3.75 J/cm 2 , a repetition rate of 1.7–2 Hz, and with the SMOOTH™ pulse mode (250 ms). The treatment sessions were performed on each patient, 4 weeks apart. Patient improvement was assessed before each laser session as well as at 12 months after the final treatment. Blind photographic evaluations were performed by three independent physicians using unlabeled before and after photos arranged in non-chronological order. Reviewers were asked to determine the before and after photos. Patients were asked to answer a questionnaire measuring satisfaction 4 weeks after each session, and to report any adverse reactions. There was statistically and clinically significant improvement in the Fitzpatrick classification of the periorbital wrinkles. Blinded evaluators correctly identified the before and after photos in all cases. All patients reported mild edema and erythema, which persisted for 1 to 2 days, and superficial peeling of the skin for 4 to 6 days after each laser treatment. No long-term adverse effects were reported. The non-ablative long-pulse 2940 nm Er:YAG laser seems to be a safe and effective treatment for periocular rejuvenation with minimal and tolerable adverse reaction. The improvement attained from the laser sessions was persisting after 1 year denoting the long-term efficacy of the procedure.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it