Health Professionalsʼ and Consumersʼ Opinion: What Is Considered Important When Rating Burn Scars From Photographs?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With advances in wound care technology, there is a trend toward patients undertaking specialist burns treatment in an outpatient capacity. Photographic scar evaluation is a part of this trend in some health services because it permits scar assessment by different health professionals, both within and across outpatient services, to assess the impact of scar management strategies. The aim of this study was to explore the parameters considered integral to scar assessment when completing photographic scar evaluation. First, opinions were sought from 38 burn health professionals in 2 tertiary pediatric hospitals who participated in focus groups where in-person and in-photograph scar rating were completed using three burn scar rating scales (modified Vancouver scar scale, Manchester scar scale, and patient and observer scar assessment scale) presented with a standard format and instructions. Second, 36 occupational therapists and physiotherapists from Australia and New Zealand completed questionnaires. Third, 10 healthcare consumers from 1 tertiary pediatric hospital participated in face-to-face or telephone interviews. Parameters believed to be assessed using photographic evaluation of burns scarring were vascularity, surface area, color, contour, height, and overall opinion. However, surface area was considered questionable as an indicator of scar maturity. These parameters mostly differ from those considered important in a burn scar outcome measure when rating scars in-person: height/thickness, vascularity, color, pliability, joint function, and patient/client opinion. A categorical scale with visual descriptors, as well as specific strategies to improve photographic technique, may go some way to addressing the perceived difficulty in rating these parameters using burn scar photographs.
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) | 0.001 | 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".