A kóros hegek kezelésének és megelőzésének lehetőségei napjainkbanr
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aetiology of pathologic scarring is unknown today regarding the keloids. The authors have analyzed the literature and own experience retrospectively according to the evidence based treatments and prevention of the hypertrophic and keloid scars. The corticosteroids have been used intralesionally since the beginning of the 1960-ies. It was followed by the pressure garment therapy in order to treat the widespread burns scars in the early 1970-ies. The silicone gel sheeting is being used since the 1980-ies. The basic treatment of keloids changed, radiotherapy was combined with the above mentioned methods because of its high recurrence rate. Newer methods, cryosurgery as well as lasers were used to treat keloids. The number of effective topical agents was increased. The researchers have been looking for other, intralesionally usable medicine and genetic causes for more than ten years. The clinicians have had the standard protocols of the adjunct and alternative methods too. After having the standard and internationally accepted scar assessment system (Vancouver-scar scale and score), the controlled, randomized trials were practicable. The prospective evaluation of the efficacy of different protocols with adequate follow-up became performable. The comparison of different methods is difficult because of the lack of its standard outcome.
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 | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".