Burn Therapists’ Opinion on the Application and Essential Characteristics of a Burn Scar Outcome Measure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comprehensive burn rehabilitation requires the use of an appropriate burn scar outcome measure (BSOM). The literature reports many BSOMs; however, an objective, practical, inexpensive, valid, reliable, and responsive instrument eludes us. A problem in the development of such a measure is disagreement in which scar properties to include. The objective of this study was to determine the burn scar variables that therapists believe should be included in a BSOM. An Internet survey was administered to burn occupational and physical therapists. The response rate was 38.6% (105 surveys). Of the respondents, 38.1% use a BSOM; of those, 75% use the Vancouver Scar Scale. Reasons why respondents do not use a BSOM (61.9%) are because they are not familiar with available measures, have not found one that is clinically practical, or need more training. The majority (95%) believes that using a BSOM is important, and the following BSOM characteristics were reported as important: reliable, valid, quick, easy, and noninvasive. Respondents indicated that the following properties should be included in a BSOM: pliability (96.2%), vascularity (92.4%), height (87.6%), appearance (75.2%), skin breakdown (74.3%), itch (73.3%), surface texture (70.5%), pigmentation (68.6%), and pain (67.6%). This study suggests that using a BSOM is important despite its inconsistent use, and BSOM education may be valuable. The top three agreed-upon properties for inclusion are already incorporated into the most commonly used BSOM-the Vancouver Scar Scale-suggesting that modifications may be reasonable.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".