MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796676200 · doi:10.1093/jbcr/iry006.082

79 One Center’s Experience with the Use of Laser Treatments for Burn Scar

2018· article· en· W2796676200 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rebecca Coffey, Rachel Penny, Heather M. Powell, J. Kevin Bailey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBurn centerScarsSingle CenterSurgeryOutpatient clinicRetrospective cohort studyEmergency medicineInternal medicinePoison control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of lasers to modify burn scars has advanced from a novel technique to a viable strategy. Further, the high cost of ownership of lasers can deter their use. We conducted a review of our experience with light-based treatment of burn scars, including some cases of early treatment (during the acute admission) using rented laser equipment. The routine access to PDL and FXCO2 lasers was initiated in December of 2015 at our burn center. An IRB-approved retrospective review of our clinical experience and program development was conducted. Data collected included demographic data, the Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), Vancouver scar scale, complications, number of treatments, type of treatment, description of laser treatment, scar location and size, and a cost analysis. Forty- eight patients completed therapy, including four patients treated during the acute admission. Mean age of patients was 44.8 range 17–76. Initial outpatient clinic treatments were restricted to use of the PDL. FXCO2 treatment was combined with other surgical procedures under general anesthesia (n=3) until early 2017 when FXCO2 was offered in the outpatient clinic (n=12). Of the 106 outpatient treatments, there were two cases of blistering (with PDL) and one case of graft loss (PDL). Despite a trend in improvement of the total POSAS score from time 1 to 3 for both the total patient and total observer POSAS score it was not significant (p = 0.59 patient and p =0.09 observer). Patient itch score demonstrated improvement from time 1 to time 3 however it was not significant (p = 0.22). Financial analysis revealed profitability in the use of both FXCO2 and PDL lasers in the clinic. The initiation of a laser program can be accomplished with rental of a laser. Furthermore, it can be done safely both in the inpatient and outpatient setting and can be profitable for a burn center. Our experience indicates that in cases where purchase of a laser poses a prohibitive barrier to offering laser therapy, lase rental may offer a viable alternative.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.241
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicDermatologic Treatments and ResearchFrench-language works237,207