Aesthetic evaluation after non‐invasive treatment for superficial basal cell carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cosmetic results following non-invasive treatments are difficult to compare. Although qualified objective scar assessment scales are available, they are not used in dermatological studies. Usually a 4-point scale is used in dermatological scars. The reproducibility of this method has never been evaluated. Moreover, significant specific scar characteristics are lacking. The patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS) is a scale qualified for the assessments of surgical scars. It has proven to be as reliable as the widely used Vancouver Scar Scale, but has the advantage that it includes the patient's opinion and specifies different scar characteristics. OBJECTIVE: Both methods were used to evaluate cosmetic results following non-invasive treatments of superficial basal cell carcinoma (BCC). METHODS: A total of 54 lesions following non-invasive treatment for BCC in 54 patients were evaluated with the traditional 4-point scale and the POSAS. RESULTS: The 4-point scale showed the best reproducibility and had an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.52-0.77) for a single observer and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.77-0.91) for multiple observers. The ICC of the POSAS was 0.41 (95% CI: 0.21-0.58) for a single observer and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.45-0.81) for three observers. The scar characteristics, vascularity and pigmentation were most decisive for the overall opinion. CONCLUSION: The use of the 4-point scale is a valid method to compare scars of non-invasive dermatological treatments. Supplementary registering vascularity and pigmentation can be useful in future studies.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".