Early fractional carbon dioxide laser intervention for postsurgical scars in skin of color
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Fractional CO 2 laser is one of the most effective treatment options used to resurface scars. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of early treatment of postsurgical scar by fractional ablative CO 2 laser. Methods: A total of 27 Egyptian patients with recent postoperative scars were enrolled in this study. Three sessions of fractional CO 2 laser with a 1-month interval were started 4 weeks after surgery. Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) was used as an assessment tool at 1 and 3 months after the final treatment. Patients reported their satisfaction using a subjective 4-point scale. Results: Results demonstrated a statistically significant overall average improvement of the VSS (5.33±1.33) before compared with (2.55±1.06) 3 months after the last laser treatment ( P ≤0.001). Among the individual parameters in the VSS, the most significant improvements were found in pigmentation, height, and pliability. Patient’s subjective satisfaction scores showed a significant greater degree of satisfaction after laser treatment. Conclusion: Fractional ablative CO 2 laser is an effective and safe treatment modality for surgical scars in the early postsurgical period. Keywords: scar, fractional, CO 2 laser
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) | 0.002 | 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".