The treatment of keloids with pneumatic technology: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Keloid scars derive from abnormal fibrous wound healing when the mechanisms controlling tissue repair and regeneration malfunction. Previous studies have reported a reduction in hyaluronic acid among fibroblasts cultured from keloid tissue compared with the levels in normal skin. Here, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of subdermal minimal surgery using hyaluronic acid as a novel treatment in keloid scars. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of subdermal minimal surgery technology in the treatment of keloids. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten Korean patients (Fitzpatrick skin type II-IV) with keloids on the upper arms were enrolled in this study. All patients underwent three sessions of subdermal minimal surgery at three-week intervals. Scar assessments were performed at baseline, before each treatment session, and three months after the final treatment, with three different assessment methods. Specifically, in addition to the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), two independent physicians performed global assessment evaluations regarding the final cosmetic results. As a final form of assessment, participant satisfaction was assessed using a four-point scale. RESULTS: All volunteers completed three treatment sessions, and nine of 10 patients were satisfied with the procedure. The average VSS score decreased three months after the final treatment, and global assessment showed clinical improvement of the scars. No adverse events occurred, except transient spot bleeding at entry points and slight post-procedure edema, which resolved within 48 hours. CONCLUSION: Subdermal minimal surgery technology may help to improve keloids on the upper arm without noticeable adverse effects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".