Development and Validation of a Scale for Acne Scar Severity (SCAR-S) of the Face and Trunk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: scarring is an important component of overall acne severity, but there are no global scales for its evaluation inclusive of the face and trunk. OBJECTIVE: our objective was to develop a global scale for acne scar severity inclusive of the trunk and the face. METHODS: a six-category global severity scale (SCAR-S) was developed for assessment of acne scarring at each of the face, chest, and back. We evaluated SCAR-S against acne severity and patient-reported scar severity. RESULTS: of 973 subjects, 73% reported acne scarring. Self-assessment of scarring was associated with facial SCAR-S and overall SCAR-S scores (p < .001, r = .31 and .30, respectively). Acne scarring was observed at the face in 87%, the back in 51%, and the chest in 38%. Clinically relevant scarring (mild or greater) at each of these regions was 55%, 24%, and 14%, respectively. Acne severity correlated with SCAR-S (p < .001) for the back (r = .612), the chest (r = .548), and the face (r = .514). Acne duration correlated with patient-reported severity of scarring (r = .244) and overall SCAR-S scores (r = .152). Clinically relevant scarring increased with acne duration. CONCLUSION: SCAR-S is a practical, validated, global system for acne scar evaluation and is clinically relevant in overall severity grading of acne.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".