Safety and Efficacy Evaluation of Pulsed Dye Laser Treatment, CO<sub>2</sub> Ablative Fractional Resurfacing, and Combined Treatment for Surgical Scar Clearance.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. J Drugs Dermatol. 2016;15(11):1315-1319..
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".