Exploration of Nonsurgical Scar Modification Options
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine, in principle, whether microdermabrasion can alter waffle-pattern (meshed split-thickness skin graft) burn scars after scar maturation. Matured waffle-pattern mesh-graft scars were treated with multiple microdermabrasion sessions over the course of a year (maximum 20). Before and after treatment, the treated scars and the control scar on the same patient were assessed with subjective and objective scar assessment tools (scar scales, cutometer [elasticity], laser Doppler flowmeter [vascularity], Semmes-Weinstein filaments [sensation], and high-resolution ultrasound [thickness]). The treatment resulted in continuous improvement of some physiologic skin functions like perfusion response (feedback), thickness, and elasticity when compared with nontreated scar, although no statistical significance was reached. Both Vancouver scar scale and patient assessment scales showed significant improvement. The study showed that even mature waffle pattern scars can be modified by minimally invasive interventions. Larger study groups and more economic treatment modalities need to be studied in the future.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".