Quantitative and qualitative dermal change with microfat grafting of facial scars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate changes in dermal characteristics with subdermal fat grafting of cutaneous scars. DESIGN: Prospective cohort. METHODS: Fourteen patients with various scar types were treated with subdermal fat grafting over 30 months. Dermal elasticity, vascularity, pigmentation, patient perception and satisfaction, and observer assessment of scar characteristics were evaluated preoperatively and 1 year after treatment with validated objective and subjective measures. RESULTS: Significant improvements were observed in dermal elasticity, patient and observer perception of scar thickness, patient perception of stiffness, and observer perception of relief and pliability (P < 0.05). A trend toward significance was seen in observer assessment of height as evaluated by the Vancouver Scar Scale (P < 0.1). No significant differences were seen in quantitatively and qualitatively measured vascularity and pigmentation (P > 0.1). No significant difference in pain, pruritus, and irregularity were reported (P > 0.1). CONCLUSION: Although fat grafting represents a subdermal process, it appears to improve certain quantitative and qualitative dermal characteristics. Fat grafting does not appear to affect skin color, vascularity, or patient symptoms.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".