Comparison of the effectiveness of pulsed dye laser vs pulsed dye laser combined with ultrapulse fractional <scp>CO</scp><sub>2</sub> laser in the treatment of immature red hypertrophic scars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Introduction The objective was to investigate the clinical effect of an adjustable pulse width Pulsed Dye Laser ( PDL ) vs an adjustable pulse width PDL combined with fractional CO 2 laser in treating immature red hypertrophic scars. Methods Fifty‐six patients (56 sites)were randomly divided into a treatment group and control group. The control group was treated with the 595 nm PDL at a fluence of 7‐15J/cm 2 and pulse widths of 1.5‐3 ms, 7 mm spot size. The treatment group was treated with a fractional CO 2 laser (UltraPulse CO 2 : Deep FX , Energy: 30~50 mJ , Frequency: 300 Hz, Density 5%, Scan Shape, and Spot Size were decided by shape and area of scar) after utilizing the 595 nm adjustable pulse width PDL (Fluence: 7‐15J/cm 2 , Pulse widths: 1.5‐3 ms, Spot size: 7 mm). MEBT / MEBO , previously described as a post‐treatment wound ointment, was used after laser treatment. The scars of the treatment group and the control group were evaluated for changes in pigment, height, vascularity, and pliability using the Vancouver Scar Scale ( VSS ) after two laser treatments. Results The total VSS score, as well as the score for melanin, height, vascularity, pliability in both groups, showed an obvious decrease following the treatments. There were statistically significant differences between before treatment and after treatment ( P < .05); however, the total score of the VSS , and score of the melanin, height, vascularity, and pliability in the control group decreased more than that of treatment group, and there was a statistically significant difference ( P < .05). Conclusions The 595 nm adjustable pulse width PDL combined with the fractional CO 2 fractional laser appears to have a beneficial clinical effect on fresh red hypertrophic scars, with no severe adverse reactions seen.
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) | 0.001 | 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".