Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laser test spots are commonly suggested for the assessment of clinical response and adverse effects, but use by laser operators is not well described. OBJECTIVE: To describe the use of laser test spots in the existing published literature regarding methodology (location, treatment parameters) and objective (clinical efficacy, safety, other). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This scoping review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines and included indexed studies performing test spots in human subjects for dermatologic conditions with clinical reassessment at a subsequent visit. RESULTS: Among 5,261 identified publications, 103 studies with 959 test spots were selected for inclusion. Test spots conducted were mostly on lesional skin (89.3%) assessing both clinical response and adverse effects (76.9%). Most test spots used multiple laser parameters with a single wavelength (48.3%). Fluence was most frequently adjusted either alone (30.1%) or in combination with pulse duration or spot size. Other described test spots examined single set of laser parameters, multiple wavelengths with various parameters, or were left unspecified. CONCLUSION: Laser test spot methodology was diverse and performed for dual objectives of efficacy and safety. The authors have compiled clinical considerations to assist laser operators in deciding whether performing a test spot may be beneficial to their patient.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.006 |
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".