Treatment of Hypertrophic Scars and Keloids Using Intense Pulsed Light
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hypertrophic scars and keloids are prevalent and emotionally debilitating dermatologic diseases. Various treatment modalities have been advocated to treat hypertrophic scars and keloids. Objective: This study prospectively assessed the safety and efficacy of using intense pulsed light (IPL) on scars that originate from surgery. Methods: A total 22 patients with surgically induced hypertrophic scars and keloids were treated with IPL. Treatment was administrated at 4-week intervals, with an average of 3.5 sessions (range=1∼10). The scars were evaluated for pigmentation, pliability, height, vascularity, pain and pruritus by using the modified Vancouver Scar Scale (MVSS). The subjective assessment of satisfaction was scored by the patients on a 25% increment of satisfaction scale. Evaluations were performed monthly during the follow-up period. Results: There was overall clinical improvement for the appearance of the scars. Although statistically significant improvement was not shown (p=0.47), the average MVSS showed a trend for favorable effects on the scars with the successive IPL treatments. The patients who had higher baseline MVSS (10) demonstrated statistically significant improvements with the successive IPL treatments (p
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".