Concomitant Therapy of Oral Isotretinoin with Multiplex Pulsed Dye Laser and Nd: YAG Laser for Acne.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate concomitant therapy of oral isotretinoin with multiplex pulsed dye laser and Nd:YAG laser. Methods: A retrospective chart review of patients who received treatment of oral isotretinoin and non-ablative laser therapy to treat acne vulgaris at a single outpatient dermatology clinic site in Ontario, Canada between 2009 and 2017. Results: 187 patients were included, consisting of 45.5 percent males (n=85) and 54.5 percent females (n=102) with a mean age of 21.4 years. 31.6 percent (n=59) of patients reported experiencing side effects from concomitant isotretinoin and NAL therapy, the most common being eczema (n=14), erythema (n=11), significant dry skin/lips/eyes (n=8), flushing (n=6), and bruising (n=6). 99.2 percent of patients achieved clear or almost clear at treatment completion. Of those who expressed satisfaction, 65.2 percent (n=122) reported being satisfied with the treatment and the remaining patients did not report satisfaction nor dissatisfaction. Limitations: Limitations exist mainly due to the absence of standardized lesion counts and a comparator cohort. Thus, it is not possible to comment on whether the combination of isotretinoin and NAL is more efficacious that either treatment alone. Conclusion: Concomitant use of isotretinoin and non-ablative laser therapy is a safe and effective treatment option for acne vulgaris that provides patient satisfaction.
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".