Rating the resolving hypertrophic scar: Comparison of the Vancouver Scar Scale and scar volume
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increased focus of research interests and clinical documentation on outcomes demands that evaluation tools provide reliable and valid data. The Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) was developed to provide a more objective measurement of burn scars; however, the validity (a test's ability to measure the phenomenon for which it was designed) of the VSS has not been tested. To examine the construct validity of the VSS, we compared it with scar volume, which has established face validity. Burn scars were evaluated monthly for a minimum of 7 months. Three scar volume measurements were performed on each scar. In addition, 3 independent examiners completed the VSS for the same scar. The data generated by these 2 measurements were used to establish the following: (1) the interrater agreement estimated by interclass correlation coefficient, (2) convergence validity, (3) the sensitivity of the assessments to discriminate changes in the scar over time, and (4) the prevalence of related parameters that are not currently being captured by the VSS. In an attempt to address some of the deficiencies of the VSS, we propose several modifications. We anticipate that these changes will increase the reliability and validity of the VSS through an increase in the awareness that training in the use of this scale is required, through improvement in the quality of the subscales, and through the documentation of additional pertinent information.
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.
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 it