MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2580267018

Safety and Efficacy Evaluation of Pulsed Dye Laser Treatment, CO<sub>2</sub> Ablative Fractional Resurfacing, and Combined Treatment for Surgical Scar Clearance.

2016· article· en· W2580267018 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joel L. Cohen, Roy G. Geronemus

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineScarsSurgeryCosmesisAblative caseRadiation therapy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: Surgical scars are an unwanted sequela following surgical procedures. Several different treatment modalities and approaches are currently being employed to improve the cosmesis of surgical scars with each having varying degrees of success. The objective of this study was to assess the ef cacy and safety pulsed dye laser treatment, CO2 ablative fractional resurfacing, and a combined treatment with these two modalities for the cosmetic improvement of surgical scarring that occurred following the surgical removal of skin cancer from different anatomic areas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients with surgical scarring most frequently on the face following recent surgical excision of skin cancer with Mohs surgery were included in this multicenter, prospective clinical study. Patients were randomized into 4 treatment arms, namely, pulsed dye laser alone, CO2 laser alone, a combined treatment with these two modalities, and CO2 ablative fractional resurfacing on the same day of surgery to half of the scar, followed by a combined treatment with the two modalities to that half of the scar. Patients in each study arm received a total of 3-4 treatments, while those patients in Arm 4 underwent an additional treatment with CO2 laser immediately after surgery. Patients were followed up at 1 and 3 months after the final treatment session. RESULTS: No adverse events were seen. Significant improvements in the appearance of scars were achieved in all study arms, as as- sessed by the Vancouver Scar Scale and Global Evaluation Response scales, with the best clinical outcomes seen in those scars that underwent a combination treatment. All patients reported very high satisfaction from treatment. CONCLUSION: Both pulsed dye laser treatment and CO2 ablative fractional resurfacing, when used as a monotherapy, are safe and effective in the treatment and improvement of recent surgical scarring. When both of these modalities are used in combination, however, they appear to potentially have a synergistic effect and an accelerated outcome on the cosmesis of recent surgical scars. <em>J Drugs Dermatol. 2016;15(11):1315-1319.</em>.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations26
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicDermatologic Treatments and ResearchFrench-language works237,207