ArticleLasers in surgery and medicine2025
Physician Level Assessment of Hirsute Women and of Their Eligibility for Laser Treatment With Deep Learning.
Article in Lasers in surgery and medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesHirsutism is a widespread condition affecting 5%-15% of females. Laser treatment of hirsutism has the best long-term effect. Patients with nonpigmented or nonterminal hairs are not eligible for laser treatment, and the current patient journey needed to establish eligibility for laser hair removal is problematic in many health-care systems.
methodsIn this study, we compared the ability to assess eligibility for laser hair removal of health-care professionals and convolutional neural network (CNN)-based models.
resultsThe CNN ensemble model, synthesized from the outputs of five individual CNN models, reached an eligibility assessment accuracy of 0.52 (95% CI: 0.42-0.60) and a κ of 0.20 (95% CI: 0.13-0.27), taking a consensus expert label as reference. For comparison, board-certified dermatologists achieved a mean accuracy of 0.48 (95% CI: 0.44-0.52) and a mean κ of 0.26 (95% CI: 0.22-0.31). Intra-rater analysis of board-certified dermatologists yielded κ in the 0.32 (95% CI: 0.24-0.40) and 0.65 (95% CI: 0.56-0.74) range.
conclusionCurrent assessment of eligibility for laser hair removal is challenging. Developing a laser hair removal eligibility assessment tool based on deep learning that performs on a par with trained dermatologists is feasible. Such a model may potentially reduce workload, increase quality and effectiveness, and facilitate equal health-care access. However, to achieve true clinical generalizability, prospective randomized clinical intervention studies are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.