A pilot Randomized control trial of scar Repigmentation with UV light and dry Tattooing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the utility of focused scar injury with an ink-free tattooing technique combined with UV light exposure for the treatment of hypopigmented cervicofacial scars. STUDY DESIGN: Pilot prospective, randomized, control trial. SUBJECTS: Individuals with long-standing hypopigmented cervicofacial scars. METHODS: Twenty individuals randomly underwent UVA light exposure with or without dry tattooing. Scars were evaluated pretreatment and at seven-months post-treatment. Outcome measures included observer and patient subjective assessment of the scar, and objective evaluation of the erythema and melanin content of the scar and the surrounding skin. RESULTS: The tattoo group demonstrated statistically significant improvement in the subjective evaluation of their scars. Scar melanin content reached equivalence with the surrounding skin. Observer and patient subjective global ratings support the use of dry tattooing. CONCLUSIONS: Dry-tattooing followed by UV light exposure may provide a safe and effective means for the treatment of hypopigmented scars.
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) | 0.001 | 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".