Tissue Tonometry Is a Simple, Objective Measure for Pliability of Burn Scar: Is It Reliable?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective measurement of burn scar response to treatment is important to facilitate individual patient care, research, and service development. This work examines the validity and reliability of the tonometer as a means of quantifying scar pliability. Ten burn survivors were recruited into the study. Triplicate measures were taken for each of four scar and one normal skin point. The pliability score from the Vancouver Scar Scale also was used as a comparison. The tonometer demonstrated a high degree of reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients 0.91-0.94). It also was shown to provide a valid measure of pliability by quantifying decreased tissue deformation for scar (2.04 +/- 0.45 mm) compared with normal tissue (3.02 +/- 0.92 mm; t = 4.28, P = .004) and a moderate correlation with Vancouver Scar Scale scores. The tissue tonometer provides a repeatable, objective index of burn scar pliability. Using the methods described, it is a simple, clinically useful technique for monitoring an individual's scar.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".