MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Treatment of Pigmented Hypertrophic Scars with the 585 nm Pulsed Dye Laser and the 532 nm Frequency-Doubled Nd:YAG Laser in the Q-Switched and Variable Pulse Modes: A Comparative Study

2002· article· en· W2027853172 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatologic Surgery · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaserScarsDye laserHypertrophic scarsMedicinePulse durationPulse (music)Hypertrophic scarQ-switchingNd:YAG laserOpticsMaterials scienceSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pigmented hypertrophic scars are a difficult condition to treat. They may result from traumatic injuries or from surgical and cosmetic procedures. The 585 nm flashlamp-pumped pulsed dye laser (FLPDL) has been used to treat this condition, with significant improvement of varying degrees. It remains to be determined whether other laser modalities may have a similar or even greater success in the treatment of pigmented hypertrophic scars. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of the 532 nm frequency-doubled Nd:YAG laser in the treatment of pigmented hypertrophic scars as compared to the 585 nm FLPDL. METHODS: Six patients with pigmented hypertrophic scars and skin phototypes II-IV were chosen. A scar was selected for treatment in each patient and divided into four equal 2 cm segments. Three segments were each treated with a different laser modality and one was left untreated to serve as the control. A 585 nm FLPDL was used with an energy of 3.5 J, a pulse duration of 450 microsec, and a 10 mm spot size. A 532 nm Q-switched frequency-doubled Nd:YAG laser was set to an energy of 2.8 J, a 10-nsec pulse, and a 3 mm spot size. The same 532 nm laser was set to the variable pulse mode to treat a 2 cm scar segment, with an energy of 9.5 J, a 10-msec pulse, and a 4 mm spot size. An average of 3.3 treatments were performed on each scar segment, at intervals of 4-6 weeks and long-term follow-up at 22 weeks. Treatment outcome was graded by a blind observer using the Vancouver General Hospital (VGH) Burn Scar Assessment Scale. A SigmaStat t-test was used to determine the statistical significance of the values obtained. RESULTS: Treatment of pigmented hypertrophic scars with the 532 nm Q-switched Nd:YAG laser led to a significant improvement of 38% in the VGH scores when compared to baseline (P =.005). The 585 nm FLPDL also had a favorable effect on the scars, with an average improvement of 36.1% in the VGH scores. There was no significant difference noted between the outcome of treatment with either of these two lasers. Treatment with the 532 nm variable pulse Nd:YAG laser led to a 19% improvement in the VGH scores of scars, which did not differ significantly from the 16.1% improvement observed in control scars on the last follow-up visit. No side effects or complications from treatment were noted or reported during the course of the study. At the conclusion of the study, five of six patients chose the segment treated with the 532 nm Q-switched Nd:YAG laser as the best segment overall. CONCLUSION: The 532 nm Q-switched Nd:YAG laser and the 585 nm FLPDL offer comparable favorable results in the treatment of pigmented hypertrophic scars. The 532 nm Q-switched Nd:YAG laser may be preferred by patients particularly distressed by the dark color of their 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it