Comparative study between intralesional injection of bleomycin and 5-fluorouracil in the treatment of keloids and hypertrophic scars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this work was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intralesional injection of 5-fluorouracil and bleomycin in the treatment of keloids and hypertrophic scars . One hundred and twenty patients were divided into the following groups: group IA was injected intralesionally with 5-fluorouracil; group IB was injected intralesionally with a combination of triamcinolone acetonide and 5-fluorouracil; group II was injected intralesionally with bleomycin . Patients underwent follow up by photographing and Vancouver scar scale system. There was a significant improvement in the Vancouver scar scale in group II compared to group I after treatment. There was hyperpigmentation , pain and ulceration in all the studied groups. Pain was significantly decreased in group IB compared to that in group IA, ulceration was significantly decreased in group II than in group I while pain after injection was increased in group II than in group I. Relapse occurred in 12 patients of group IA, 14 patients of group IB and no relapse occurred in group II. So, intralesional injection of bleomycin was more effective and better in remission than intralesional 5-fluorouracil injection in the treatment of keloids and hypertrophic scars regardless of patient’s age, sex, disease duration or site of the lesion.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".