A Comparison of the Scar Prevention Effect Between Carbon Dioxide Fractional Laser and Pulsed Dye Laser in Surgical Scars
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
BACKGROUND: The use of ablative lasers based on the fractional approach is a novel strategy for the treatment of postoperative and acne scars in addition to wrinkles. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the efficacy of carbon dioxide ablative fractional laser (AFL) and the pulsed dye laser (PDL) for the improvement of surgical scars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen Korean patients with surgical scars were enrolled for this study. Half of each scar was treated with a 10,600-nm AFL and the contralateral half with the 595-nm PDL. For early intervention of the postoperative scar, the laser treatments were begun after 2 weeks from the Mohs micrographic surgery. RESULTS: Both PDL and AFL produced statistically significant improvements. However, comparatively, there was no statistical difference between them. In each variable, AFL was more effective than PDL in the improvement of pliability and thickness. In contrast, PDL was superior to AFL in the improvement of vascularity and pigmentation. CONCLUSION: Pulsed dye laser and AFL treatments for surgical scar provide significant improvement. Pulsed dye laser was more effective in color of scar compared with AFL, which showed marked improvement in the contour of scar. Overall improvement was not statistically different in the Vancouver Scar Scale.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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