A Review of Intense Pulsed Light in the Treatment of Ocular Rosacea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Ocular rosacea is an underdiagnosed form of rosacea that may occur with or without typical cutaneous signs of rosacea. One of the common manifestations is dry eyes. Although the use of intense pulsed light (IPL) in the treatment of rosacea-related dry eyes has been reported, a recent review is lacking. METHODS: A scoping review was performed to summarize the efficacy of IPL in the treatment of ocular rosacea. RESULTS: Five articles were included, representing 108 patients, with a mean age of 58.4 years. Based on available data, 59.2% (n = 58/98) were female. The studies detailed the use of IPL in combination with meibomian gland expression treatment. Overall, 91% (n = 89/98) of patients with ocular rosacea treated with IPL had a partial response and 9% (n = 9/98) had no response. IPL therapy did not lead to complete recovery in any of the included patients. One participant experienced an adverse event across the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: IPL is a promising treatment modality for ocular rosacea, as demonstrated by its ability to relieve dry eye symptoms with limited adverse events. Further research into this novel treatment is necessary to ascertain its role in the management of ocular rosacea.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".