531 Comparison of Clinical Estimation and Stereophotogrammic Instrumented Imaging of Burn Scar Height and Volume
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Descriptive clinical tools for the characterization of burn scar features are limited by variability between users and unknown sensitivity to change over time. We have previously described pre-clinical assessment of stereophotogrammetry as a valid measure of burn related scar and in this study compare the estimated vs. instrumented measurement of maximum height and total positive volume of burn scars in a tertiary care adult outpatient burn clinic. Methods This study was approved by our university’s research ethics board. All participants provided written informed consent. Persons 18 years or older presenting to an outpatient burn clinic with closed burn scar that may be captured in a single image were enrolled in the study. Patients with scars from other injuries or who were unable to provide consent were excluded. Photographs of burn scars were taken with a commercially available 3D camera. Three experienced wound care therapists estimated the maximum height and total positive volume of the collected images. The images were assessed with stereophotogrammic software with results exported to a spreadsheet for further analysis. Two factor analysis without replication was performed to calculate intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) between the assessors estimated scar height and volume and the measured height and volume. Two sided Wilcoxon tests were performed comparing mean estimated height and volume between estimated and measured output. Results Fifteen participants with a mean age of 42.6 (21-68) were enrolled. Twenty-six scar images were taken from wounds that were managed by non operative treatment (20), excision and grafting (5), and 1 image was collected from a skin graft donor site. Scar images were taken of the trunk and extremities, but none of the head nor neck. The estimated maximum scar height ICC was 0.595 and volume 0.531. The measured scar height ICC was 0.933 and volume 0.890. Wilcoxon tests of estimated and measured volume were significantly different (z = -2.87, p = 0.041). Comparison of estimated and measured height were not significant (z = -1.39, p 0.161). Conclusions Stereophotogrammic measurement of maximum scar height and total scar volume is more reliable than clinical photograph assessment. Clinical estimation of scar volume is significantly less than instrumented measurement, although maximum estimated vs. measured scar height was not significant in this study. There are limitations in measuring scar properties for image capture that exceeds the visual field.
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 | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
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 ».