The History and Advancement of Light, Lasers, and Energy-Based Devices in Dermatologic Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: From the theoretical foundations of laser and energy-based applications for the skin to the development of advanced medical devices, the field of dermatologic surgery has undergone transformative changes. OBJECTIVE: To review the scientific and clinical advancement of laser and energy-based therapies within dermatologic surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted to identify important scientific advancements and landmark studies on light, laser, and energy-based devices within the field of dermatologic surgery. RESULTS: Since the introduction of selective photothermolysis principles in the 1980s, numerous laser and energy-based devices have been developed to effectively treat vascular lesions, target pigmentation, remove tattoos, rejuvenate the skin, and remove hair. Beyond aesthetic applications, photodynamic therapy was introduced to treat various neoplastic and inflammatory conditions. Lasers have also been employed to enhance transcutaneous drug delivery, and new lasers continue to emerge for treating common inflammatory conditions, such as acne. These innovations have contributed to a paradigm shift toward safe and effective, but less invasive, procedure-based treatment in addressing medical and aesthetic concerns in dermatology. CONCLUSION: Dermatologists have consistently led the way in the continuous development and innovative application of laser and energy-based devices to effectively address a variety of skin conditions.
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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".