MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2435912127

Pulsed Dye Laser for Early Treatment of Scars After Dermatological Surgery.

2015· article· en· W2435912127 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Osvaldo Vázquez‐Martínez, Kristian Eichelmann, Martha Elena García-Meléndez, Ivette Miranda, Alberto Avila-Lozano, David Vega, Jorge Ocampo‐Candiani

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineScarsErythemaSurgeryLesionFibrous jointTelangiectasiaDermatologyEdemaDye laserLaserPlaceboWound healingPathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Wound healing is a complex process; during the process angiogenesis takes place, that presents clinically as erythema, telangiectasia and edema. Pulsed dye laser (PDL) has a wavelength of 585-595 nm, which targets the chromophore hemoglobin. OBJECTIVE: Determine the level of improvement of post-dermatological surgery scars. METHODS: Thirty patients attending for excision lesion were recruited. They were randomized to 1 of 2 groups. Group 1 scar was randomly divided into 2 parts, one half received PDL 595 nm on 3 occasions; the first after suture removal, 15 and 45 days. Group 2 in one half laser application was simulated while the other was left untreated. The Vancouver scar scale (VSS) was used by an external evaluator to assess the scars. Two skin biopsies were also obtained one before and one after laser treatment. RESULTS: The VSS at 45 days decreased in a significant way in the treatment group from 4 to 1 (P = .005). In the control group decreased from 2 to 1.3 (P = .056). No significant difference was found between the presence of inflammatory infiltrate of patients in the placebo group. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed the usefulness of pulsed dye laser for improving the appearance of scars.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.131
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicDermatologic Treatments and ResearchFrench-language works237,207