Measurement of Pressure in Compressive Magnet Therapy for Auricular Keloids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Keloid scars are benign overgrowths of collagen deposits that can arise from various types of injury. Although they can develop anywhere on the body, keloids are a particularly common complication of ear piercings, with incidence estimated to be as high as 2.5%.1 Excision of keloids without adjuvant therapy results in recurrence rates between 45% and 100%.2 One method of adjuvant therapy is compressive magnet therapy which, when performed after surgical excision, has been shown to drop recurrence rates significantly.1,3 Although these studies provide some information on the magnets studied, such as diameter, thickness, gauss rating, or pressure measured with a digital manometer, reporting of such data is inconsistent, and replication of use is complicated by other factors such as size, location, and thickness of the scars. Based on critical responses to these studies, there is a clear need for a more systematic approach to magnet therapy. In addition, for magnets of such small diameter and distance, theoretical calculations of force are inaccurate. This is particularly important when considering that sufficient external pressure exerted against skin can impair the underlying circulation and lead to ischemia, cell death, and necrosis.4 The compressive pressures of 6 magnets of different surface areas and thicknesses with estimated pressures of about 40 mm Hg were quantified using an Instron 5542 (Instron, Norwood, Mass.). The testing was performed using displacement control at a rate of 1 mm/min. Silicone sheets of various thicknesses were placed in between the magnets to simulate the presence of auricular tissue. We compared our data with the Gilbert Model approximation of force between 2 cylindrical magnets. We measured the magnetic force (N) as a function of the separation between magnets for a sample size of 6 magnets (Table 1). Figure 1 shows magnetic compression pressure for a grade N42 magnet pair (diameter, 0.5 in; thickness, 0.03125 in). Color curves represent empirically measured pressure between 2 magnets over increasing simulated tissue thickness. In order of increasing thickness: 0 mm (red), 0.725 mm (yellow), 1.3165 mm (lime green), 1.866 mm (green), 2.408 mm (sky blue), 2.975 mm (blue), 3.56 mm (purple), and 4.244 mm (magenta). The black curve represents calculated pressure using the Gilbert Model approximation of force between 2 cylindrical magnets. This calculation approaches infinity at small distances. Major discrepancies were found between the calculated and measured values of magnet pressures. We also found that the presence of silicone sheets representing auricular tissue did not affect the magnet pressures at any given distance. In conclusion, although compressive magnet therapy is a promising adjuvant treatment for auricular keloids, major discrepancies between the calculated and actual values of magnet pressures elucidate the need for a quantified approach to keloid magnet therapy. The measurement of compression forces is the first step in standardizing this approach for future studies and the development of treatment algorithms for keloids incorporating compressive magnet therapy.Table 1.: Magnet grade, surface field, diameter, and thickness specifications for all 6 magnet pairs, as well as comparisons of theoretical and observed pressures (mm Hg) over increasing simulated tissue thicknessFig. 1.: Magnetic compressive pressures for a grade N42 magnet pair (diameter, 0.5 in; thickness, 0.03125 in). Color curves represent empirically measured pressure between 2 magnets over increasing simulated tissue thickness. In order of increasing thickness: 0 mm (red), 0.725 mm (yellow), 1.3165 mm (lime green), 1.866 mm (green), 2.408 mm (sky blue), 2.975 mm (blue), 3.56 mm (purple), and 4.244 mm (magenta). The black curve represents calculated pressure using the Gilbert Model approximation of force between 2 cylindrical magnets. This calculation approaches infinity at small distances.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".