Observations on the Procedural Aspects and Health Effects of Scarification in Sub-Saharan Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Scarification involves cutting or making an incision into the skin and then allowing the wound to heal, leaving a permanent scar. The purpose of this article is to examine the origins of scarification and its social and medical significance in sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: We conducted a computerized search in the MEDLINE electronic database with combinations of the following terms: scarification, tribal marks, keloid, hypertrophic scar, Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa. Inclusion criteria were studies published in English involving human participants. We reviewed the bibliography of each article that met our inclusion criteria for additional relevant studies. We abstracted data on the historical, social, and medical aspects of scarification from eligible studies. RESULTS: This review of scarification in sub-Saharan Africa highlights the complex interplay that exists between biology and society. Photographs, artwork, and literary descriptions reveal that scarification results in hypertrophic or atrophic scars, although these types of scars are often mistakenly referred to as keloids. In terms of the procedural aspects of scarification, specific tools and substances were consistently used by various ethnic groups. Although much is known about the history of scarification as a form of identification in Africa, it appears that the practice also had medical applications. Scarification was used to treat conditions such as epilepsy, although it was also known to exacerbate conditions such as sarcoidosis, lichen planus, and psoriasis. Evolving cultural beliefs, in addition to the association of scarification with an increased risk of contracting hepatitis B and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are contemporary threats to this long-standing practice. CONCLUSIONS: Given the remarkably consistent appearance of scars that are described in the literature and depicted in images, scarification does not appear to be a random or accidental occurrence. Instead, it is a deliberate attempt to reproduce a custom that has been perfected after many years of practice in sub-Saharan Africa.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".