Hypertrophic Scar, Wound Contraction and Hyper-Hypopigmentation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For decades, hypertrophic scarring, contraction, and pigment abnormalities have altered the future for children and adults after thermal injury. The hard, raised, red and itchy scars; shrunken wounds; and hyper- and hypo-pigmented scars are devastating to physical and psychosocial outcomes. The specific causes remain essentially unknown and, at present, prevention and treatment are symptomatic and marginal at best. Hypertrophic scarring is the major significant negative outcome after survival from of a thermal injury. Hypertrophic scars are hard, raised, red, itchy, tender, and contracted.1,2 These scars are ugly, disfiguring, and uncomfortable and may diminish, but never totally go away. Hypertrophic scarring after deep partial-thickness wounds is common. We have reviewed the English literature on the prevalence of hypertrophic scarring3 and found that children, young adults, and people with darker, more pigmented skin are particularly vulnerable and, in this subpopulation, the prevalence is up to 75%.4,–6 Hypertrophic scarring is devastating and can result in disfigurement and scarring that affects quality of life which, in turn, can lead to lowered self esteem, social isolation, prejudicial societal reactions, and job discrimination.7,–12 Scarring also has profound rehabilitation consequences, including loss of function, impairment, disability, and difficulties pursuing recreational and vocational pursuits.10,13,14
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 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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it