[Skin needle roller importing triamcinolone acetonide into scar to treat hypertrophic scars].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of importing triamcinolone acetonide into hypertrophic scars with skin roller needles. METHODS: Thirty-two cases with burn hypertrophic scar were treated. The skin roller needles were moved back and forth on the hypertrophic scars with triamcinolone acetonide dropping on the scar surface at the same time. So the triamcinolone acetonide could be imported into the scar through needles and needle holes. The effect was evaluated as cured, effective, and no effect. The Vancouver scaring criteria and visual analogue scale was used to assess the scar color, thickness, texture and feeling before and after treatment, as well as at the untreated scar area (control). RESULTS: Thirty-two cases were treated 1-3 times, including 28 cases with cured result and 4 cases with effective result. The total effective rate was 100%. The scar color, thickness, texture and feeling was significantly different between the scar before and after treatment, or between the treated and untreated scar (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Importing triamcinolone acetonide into hypertrophic scars with skin roller needles is effective. It is a new method for the treatment of large hypertrophic scar with medicine.
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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".