Prospective Evaluation of Fractional CO2 Laser Treatment of Mature Burn 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
The authors conducted a prospective study of fractional CO2 laser treatment of mature burn scars, comparing objective and subjective scar measurements evaluating at least one treatment and one control scar on the same patient pre- and post treatments. After institutional review board approval, burn survivors with mature blatant burn scars were invited to enter the study. A series of three fractional CO2 laser treatments was performed in an office setting, using topical anesthetic cream, at 40 to 90 mJ, 100 to 150 spots per cm(2). Subjective and objective measurements of scar physiology and appearance were performed before and at least 1 month after the treatment series on both the treated and the control scar. A total of 80 scars, 48 treatment and 32 control scars, were included in the study. Treatment pain score averaged at 4.7/10 during and at 2.4/10 5 minutes after the treatment. All treated scars showed improvement. Objectively measured thickness, sensation, erythema, and pigmentation improved significantly in the treated scars (P = .001, .001, .004, and .001). Elasticity improved, but without statistical significance. Vancouver scar scale assessments by an independent observer improved from 8 to 6; patient self-reported pain and pruritus remained unchanged in both groups. Fractional CO2 laser treatment is a promising entity in the treatment of burn scars. Our study results show significant differences in objective measurements between the treated scars and the untreated control scars over the same time period. In scar treatment studies, the patient/observer and Vancouver scar scales may not be sensitive enough to detect outcome differences.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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