Histometric and Histochemical Analysis of the Effect of Trichloroacetic Acid Concentration in the Chemical Reconstruction of Skin Scars Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Atrophic scars can be induced by various causes, including severely inflamed acne, chicken pox, and trauma. Many treatment modalities are used for reconstructing and improving the appearance of scars with various treatment results. OBJECTIVE: A recent report shows the clinical efficacy of the chemical reconstruction of skin scars (CROSS) method, which consists of the focal application of trichloroacetic acid (TCA) in a higher concentration. Histometric analysis of the CROSS method, however, has not yet been established. METHODS: In this study, five hairless mice were used to evaluate the effect of the CROSS method and to analyze the difference between the CROSS method and simple TCA application. RESULTS: Similar histologic changes were observed in the two methods, including epidermal and dermal rejuvenation with new collagen deposition. These changes, however, were more prominent in the CROSS method-treated areas, particularly when 100% TCA was used. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that treatment of atrophic scars using the CROSS method is more effective than simple application of TCA in activating fibroblasts in the dermis and increasing the amount of collagen.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".