Multicenter retrospective review of pulsed dye laser in nonulcerated infantile hemangioma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: We sought to describe the experience among members of the Hemangioma Investigator Group with pulsed dye laser (PDL) in the treatment of nonulcerated infantile hemangioma (IH) in pediatric patients in the pre- and post-beta-blocker era. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients with nonulcerated IH treated with laser therapy. Patient demographics, IH characteristics, indications for/timing of laser therapy, as well as laser parameters were collected. Responses to laser therapy were evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: One hundred and seventeen patients with IH were treated with PDL. 18/117 (15.4%) had early intervention (defined as <12 months of life), and 99/117 (84.6%) had late intervention (≥12 months of life). In the late intervention group, 73.7% (73/99) had additional medical management of their IH. The mean age at PDL initiation for the late intervention group was 46.7 ± 35.3 months of life (range 12-172 months) with total number of treatments to maximal clearing of 4.2 ± 2.8 (range 1-17). Those who received propranolol prior to PDL received fewer sessions (1.1 fewer sessions, approaching significance [p = .056]). On the VAS, there was a mean 85% overall improvement compared to baseline (range 18%-100%), with most improvement noted in erythema and/or telangiectasias. The incidence of adverse effects was 6/99 (6.1%). CONCLUSIONS: PDL is a useful tool in the treatment of IH, with notable improvement of telangiectasia and erythema and low risk of complications. PDL is often introduced after the maximal proliferative phase.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".