Comparative efficacy of intralesional triamcinolone acetonide injection during early and static stage of pathological scarring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to clarify whether the effect of intralesional triamcinolone acetonide injection during the early stage of scarring differs from the static stage, which still remains unclear. METHODS: A total of 108 patients with pathological scars were enrolled in this study and were divided into 2 groups according to the time of first treatment after injury: the early stage group(≤6 months after injury) and the static stage group(>6 months after injury). Patients of both groups were then treated with intralesional triamcinolone acetonide injection. The Vancouver scar scale was adopted for the evaluation of scars, and a durometer was utilized for the measurement of the hardness of the scar. The visual analog scale was adopted for the assessment of patients' subjective feelings (pruritus and pain). In the meantime, adverse drug reactions were also recorded. RESULTS: After intralesional injection of triamcinolone acetonide, most of the hypertrophic scars and keloids improved in color, thickness, softness, and vascular distribution. The hardness of scars improved significantly. The overall efficacy of the static stage group was superior to the early stage group. Most patients, after the injection of triamcinolone acetonide, had significant alleviation or even total loss of cicatricial pain and pruritus. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the treatment efficacy was better when applied during the static stage of pathological scarring rather than the early stage, which might be due to macrophages and their released cytokines. This study provides new clinical evidence for optimizing drug therapy of pathological scars.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".