Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Sir: We thank Dr. Ferriero and colleagues for their interesting comments highlighting the intriguing and complex subject of skin scarring and tissue “pliability.” Because of the complicated individual nature of skin scarring and the continuum of scar types, accurate assessment of the biomechanical properties of the skin remains a complex task to perform clinically. Difficulty arises from the fact that without laboratory analysis of the affected scar, it is not possible to accurately determine the exact effect of the scar tissue present. For example, when a scar is less mobile than normal skin, it is not feasible to classify adherence to one particular point seen against adherence between various cutaneous layers, as this cannot be visualized with the naked eye. Subjectively, this could secondarily restrict extensibility or elasticity; therefore, the capacity of a scar to glide and to stretch individually remains a deceptive measure to quantify exactly. We believe that, as it can be difficult to clearly establish on clinical examination the effect of the scarring present, the collective term of pliability is consequently best applied currently. Biological elasticity and maximum distention are the most important biophysical parameters of pliability assessed using objective devices in establishing what maintains the normal appearance of skin.1 Various noninvasive mechanical instruments have been discussed in our review2 article that record skin deformation with a component of adherence during loading and after force release, charting the skin's recovery and permitting treatment modality evaluation to be obtained. In addition, Ferriero et al.3 have reported their validation study of a new four-way horizontal orthogonal tension device to determine restriction of scar mobility from the worst operator-determined adherent point along the length of the lesion. The new Adheremeter device would be a suitable addition to clinical practice because of its simplicity of use and low cost. The tool correlated moderately well to the Vancouver Scar Scale and the nonvalidated pliability subscale, demonstrating a sensitivity to change, a good to excellent interrater reliability, and an excellent intrarater reliability (when assessed on normal skin). Despite being adaptable to different anatomical sites, the authors acknowledge the difficulty in regions of greater convexity or concavity, and further studies are warranted in different pathologic scar types. The Adheremeter presents a welcome simplistic device for examining the tension component of pliability with relation to adherence. However, in our opinion, researchers and clinicians still need to select the most appropriate device for the scar type and specific concept of pliability that they wish to assess formally. Donna M. Perry, M.C.P.S. Ardeshir Bayat, Ph.D., M.R.C.S. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Research School of Translational Medicine University of Manchester Manchester Interdisciplinary Biocentre, and Manchester Academic Health Science Centre Department Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery University Hospital of South Manchester Wythenshawe Hospital Manchester, United Kingdom
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,037 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,021 | 0,029 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».