Nonablative Fractional Diode Laser Resurfacing (1440 nm and 1927 nm) for Photoaged Skin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".