Visible Light in the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acne vulgaris, a prevalent dermatological disorder, frequently affects individuals' self-perception and general psychosocial functioning. The growing demand for home-based light therapy devices prompted a systematic review to assess the efficacy of visible light in acne treatment. Overall, 35 studies were included, representing 1185 cases of acne vulgaris (mean age: 23.7 years; sex: 63% female). A total of 69% of the included studies were level 2 evidence. Overall, 92% of patients achieved partial remission of their acne lesions using visible light therapy. Among the patients who experienced a partial remission of their acne, 46% experienced a reduction of 0% to 50% in their acne lesions, while 33% and 12% experienced reductions of 51% to 74% and 75% to 99%, respectively. Notably, blue light emerged as the predominant treatment modality in this context, used in around 64% of the cases. A total of 95% of the patients who were treated with blue light experienced a partial clearance of acne lesions; 44% experienced a reduction of 0% to 50% in their acne lesions, while 42% and 9% experienced reductions of 51% to 74% and 75% to 99%, respectively. Overall, the average total lesion count improved by 43% at week 4 compared to the baseline. The average number of treatment sessions was 22 (range 1-112 sessions). On average, treated patients responded within a period of 4 weeks. Commonly reported side effects included skin irritation and erythema. This review highlights the potential of visible light therapy in acne treatment. Head-to-head studies are needed to compare the efficacy of visible light compared to existing therapies for the treatment of acne.
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) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".