Intense pulsed light and laser treatment regimen improves scar evolution after cleft lip repair surgery
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Objective To observe the effects of intense pulsed light ( IPL ) and lattice CO 2 laser treatment on scar evolution following cleft lip repair. Methods Fifty cleft lip repair patients were enrolled in this study. Twenty‐five patients used conventional approach with scar cream massage combined with silica gel products after operation. While other 25 patients which received IPL and lattice CO 2 laser treatments. The treatments commenced 1 week after removal of stitches and observation of scar hyperplasia. Scar evolution was evaluated with the Vancouver scar scale ( VSS ) by postoperative photographs. Results Relative to the conventional approach, the laser treatments showed improved scar softening and flattening. These differences were reflected in the groups' significantly different VSS scores. Conclusion Intense pulsed light combined with lattice CO 2 laser treatment can improve cleft lip surgery scar pliability and appearance, while alleviating children from having to endure the pain of scar massage.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it