Multimodal Quantitative Analysis of Early Pulsed-Dye Laser Treatment of Scars at a Pediatric Burn Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The pulsed-dye laser (PDL) is a potential adjunctive therapy for treatment of hyperemic and hypertrophic scars. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of early PDL treatment plus compression therapy (CT) with those of CT alone in patients undergoing burn scar reconstruction with split-thickness grafts on an extremity. METHODS: Laser treatments were applied to one half of the graft seam. Standard CT was applied to both halves. Laser treatment was repeated at 6-week intervals until one half reached sufficient clinical improvements. Each half was evaluated just before treatments using quantitative measures of color, scar height, biomechanical properties and clinical features using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). RESULTS: Less quantitative scar erythema and height and greater tissue elasticity were observed after two or three treatments for PDL plus compression than with compression alone. VSS scores showed greater improvement for vascularity, pliability, pigmentation, and height for PDL plus compression than for compression alone. CONCLUSION: PDL treatment in combination with CT appears to reduce scar hyperemia and height and normalize the biomechanical properties of burn-related scars.
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 | 0.001 | 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".