Effect of orange polarized light on post burn pediatric scar: a single blind randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Purpose] This study was carried out to investigate the effect of orange filtered polarized polychromatic light on post burn pediatric scar. [Participants and Methods] Thirty children with post burn scar in wrist and hands participated in this study. They were between 3 to 7 years old, having hypertrophic burn scar ≥2 months post healing, free from concomitant skin disease and keloids. They were randomly assigned into two groups. The control group (A) (n=15) received Scar Standard Management (SSM) protocol and the study group (B) (n=15) received SSM protocol along with 15 min/area polarized light with medical range filter followed by 15 min/area orange filtered polarized light. All children received the study protocol once a day, 3 times/week for one month. Scar assessment was done before and after the study protocol by using Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). [Results] All participated children were analyzed. Comparison of post treatment results between groups revealed significant improvement of post burn scar for both groups with significant difference in favor to the study group. [Conclusion] Ultimately it was revealed that Orange filtered polarized light has a special and beneficial effect on decreasing post burn pediatric scar.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".