Clinical observation of fractionated CO_2 laser in treating facial superficial scar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of fractionated CO2laser in treating facial superficial scar. Methods The retrospective study was performed on 124 patients with facial superficial scar serviced in our department outpatient from January 2011 to December.All patients were treated by fractionated CO2laser with a session of four treatments.The efficacy and complications were analyzed.Digital photos were taken before and after the treatment respectively,1 month and3 months after the treatment to evaluate the efficacy.The recovery process and side effects were also recorded to assess the safety. Results At a session(4 steps) after surgery,the digital photos showed there was a predominance of height and color.According to the modification of the Vancouver Scar Scale,the doctor found that pliability,pigmentation and vascularity of scar improved visibly.The satisfaction of patients was 3.02±0.96.After the surgery,there was slightly flare and incrustation in the therapeutic area,and 5 patients(Fitzpatric IV) in pigmentation that gradually slaked after 3 months.After a follow-up inspection of 3 months,patients all showed curative efficacy without other complications.Conclusion The fractionated CO2laser is effective and safe in the treatment for facial superficial scar.The doctor and patients are satisfied with the overall efficacy.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".