Quantitative Measurement of Hypertrophic Scar: Intrarater Reliability, Sensitivity, and Specificity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The comparison of scar evaluation over time requires measurement tools with acceptable intrarater reliability and the ability to discriminate skin characteristics of interest. The objective of this study was to evaluate the intrarater reliability and sensitivity and specificity of the Cutometer, the Mexameter, and the DermaScan C relative to the modified Vancouver Scar Scale (mVSS) in patient-matched normal skin, normal scar (donor sites), and hypertrophic scar (HSc). A single investigator evaluated four tissue types (severe HSc, less severe HSc, donor site, and normal skin) in 30 burn survivors with all four measurement tools. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the Cutometer was acceptable (> or =0.75) for the maximum deformation measure for the donor site and normal skin (>0.78) but was below the acceptable range for the HSc sites and all other parameters. The ICC for the Mexameter erythema (>0.75) and melanin index (>0.89) and the DermaScan C total thickness measurement (>0.82) were acceptable for all sites. The ICC for the total of the height, pliability, and vascularity subscales of the mVSS was acceptable (0.81) for normal scar but below the acceptable range for the scar sites. The DermaScan C was clearly able to discriminate HSc from normal scar and normal skin based on the total thickness measure. The Cutometer was less discriminating but was still able to discriminate HSc from normal scar and normal skin. The Mexameter erythema index was not a good discriminator of HSc and normal scar. Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated to establish the best cutoff point for the DermaScan C total thickness and the Cutometer maximum deformation, which were 2.034 and 0.387 mm, respectively. This study showed that although the Cutometer, the DermaScan C, and the Mexameter have measurement properties that make them attractive substitutes for the mVSS, caution must be used when interpreting results since the Cutometer has a ceiling effect when measuring rigid tissue such as HSc and the Mexameter erythema index does not discriminate normal scar from HSc.
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 | 0.040 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".