Comparison of the effects of different pulse widths of 595 nm flashlamp-pumped pulsed dye laser in the treatment of hypertrophic scars and keloid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To determine the efficacy and to compare the effects of different pulse widths of 595 nm flashlamp-pumped pulsed dye Laser(PDL) in the treatment of hypertrophic scars and keloid.Methods Eleven patients with hypertrophic scars and keloid were treated with 595 nm PDL at 1.5 ms with 7-8.5 J / cm2using a 7 mm spot size;another 11 patients were treated with 595 nm PDL at 0.45 ms with 5-6.5 J / cm2using a 10 mm spot size.Treatment composed of 3 sessions at 4-week to 6-week intervals.Scars were evaluated using the Vancouver scar scale(VSS).Patients evaluated pain and pruritus using a scale from 0 to 10.Results The average sum of the VSS showed significant improvement after the first treatment using 1.5 ms and 0.45 ms pulse 595 nm PDL.The improvement of the VSS after the first to the third treatment were 45.45%,63.64%,100%(using 1.5 ms pulse) and 54.55%,90.90%,100%(using 0.45 ms pulse) respectively.There was no significant difference between 1.5 ms and 0.45 ms pulse treatment groups in the VSS,the individual parameters of the VSS,pain scale and pruritus scale.Conclusion The 595 nm PDL is a safe and effective treatment of hypertrophic scars and keloid.Both the 1.5 ms and 0.45 ms pulse 595 nm PDL resulted in scar improvement,there was no significant difference between them.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".