MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412138257 · doi:10.1002/lsm.70043

Current Trends and Future Directions of the Dual 1550‐nm Erbium Glass Fiber and 1927‐nm Thulium Fiber Non‐Ablative Fractional Laser System

2025· review· en· W4412138257 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Paul M. Friedman, Jeffrey S. Dover, Anne Chapas, Abby Jacobson

Bibliographic record

VenueLasers in Surgery and Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBausch Health
KeywordsThuliumAblative caseFiber laserMaterials scienceErbiumOpticsFiberOptical fiberLaserMedicinePhysicsRadiation therapyComposite materialSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To synthesize current evidence and trends supporting the dual 1550-nm erbium glass fiber and 1927-nm thulium fiber non-ablative fractional laser system's mechanism of action and proven efficacy and safety profile in addressing aging skin concerns. METHODS: A review of current evidence and expert consensus was conducted to evaluate the 1550/1927-nm dual laser system. The analysis focused on the 1550 and 1927-nm lasers' specific mechanisms of action and their applications in treating various skin conditions. RESULTS: The 1550-nm laser effectively targets dyschromia, fine lines, and various types of scars, while the 1927-nm laser specifically addresses actinic keratoses, dyschromia, and pigmented lesions. Expert consensus has established standardized protocols while emphasizing personalized treatment approaches on the basis of factors including treatment area and Fitzpatrick skin type. CONCLUSION: The 1550/1927-nm dual laser system's ability to offer customizable settings positions it as a versatile tool in the growing field of esthetic medicine, particularly for addressing the multiple components of skin aging.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLasers in Surgery and MedicineSame topicDermatologic Treatments and ResearchFrench-language works237,207