MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401906926 · doi:10.1097/dss.0000000000004379

Nonablative Fractional Diode Laser Resurfacing (1440 nm and 1927 nm) for Photoaged Skin

2024· article· en· W4401906926 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kristel D. Polder, Paul M. Friedman, Jill Feetham, Jessica A. Gower, Tina Lin, Abby Jacobson

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatologic Surgery · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAllerganGaldermaBausch HealthOrtho Dermatologics
KeywordsErythemaMedicineDermatologyPhotoagingIntense pulsed lightSkin AgingAdverse effectEdemaSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nonablative lasers treat photoaged skin and stimulate new collagen formation while sparing epidermal damage. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of nonablative fractional diode combination laser skin resurfacing treatment (1440 and 1927 nm) in mild-to-moderate photoaged skin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The entire face was treated with both 1440-nm and 1927-nm wavelengths per treatment, with a total of 4 treatments spaced 1 month apart. Follow-up occurred at 1 and 3 months post-treatment. Outcomes were improvement in the appearance of ≥1 measure of photodamage (rhytides, skin texture, dyschromia/pigment, skin radiance, pore size, and overall appearance) at the 3-month (primary) and 1-month (secondary) follow-up visits. Safety was monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: Participants ( N = 28; 89% female; mean age, 40 years) experienced significant mean improvement from baseline in all measures of photodamage with combination laser treatment at 1 and 3 months post-treatment (all p < .001). No serious adverse events occurred. Post-treatment erythema and edema were minimal, and pain levels remained consistent throughout treatment. Most participants (96.4%) considered their overall appearance as improved and expressed satisfaction with treatment outcomes. CONCLUSION: Nonablative combination laser skin resurfacing treatment was well tolerated and significantly improved measures of photodamage in photoaged skin across diverse skin types.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatologic SurgerySame topicDermatologic Treatments and ResearchFrench-language works237,207