Effect of intense pulsed light on immature burn scars: A clinical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: As intense pulsed light (IPL) is widely used to treat cutaneous vascular malformations and also used as non-ablative skin rejunuvation to remodel the skin collagen. A study has been undertaken to gauze the effect of IPL on immature burn scars with regard to vascularity, pliability and height. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was conducted between June 2013 and May 2014, among patients with immature burn scars that healed conservatively within 2 months. Photographic evidence of appearance of scars and grading and rating was done with Vancouver Scar Scale parameters. Ratings were done for both case and control scar after the completion of four IPL treatment sessions and were compared. RESULTS: Out of the 19 cases, vascularity, pliability and height improved significantly (P < 0.05) in 13, 14 and 11 scars respectively following IPL treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Intense pulsed light was well-tolerated by patients, caused good improvement in terms of vascularity, pliability, and height of immature burn scar.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".