MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2959918951 · doi:10.1002/lsm.23129

Improvement of Surgical Scars by Early Intervention With Carbon Dioxide Fractional Laser

2019· article· en· W2959918951 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yunsong Zhang, Yanhua Liu, Bing Cai, Cheng-En Luo, Dongni Li, Suijiang Wang, Zhong Sheng Sun, Sheng-Kang Luo

Bibliographic record

VenueLasers in Surgery and Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryScarsGrading scaleCarbon dioxide laserPatient satisfactionWound healingFibrous jointAblative caseLaser surgeryLaserRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objectives Laser therapy during the early stage of wound healing can reduce surgical scar formation. Previous clinical trials showed that ablative fractional laser (AFL) therapy might have achieved the best outcomes; however, there was no consensus on the laser therapy protocol. The current study investigated the efficacy of early intervention with carbon dioxide FL (CO 2 FL) in reducing the surgical scars in patients of all age groups to understand the effects of specific intervention timing, light dose, number of treatments, treatment interval on the therapeutic outcome, and side effects. Study Design/Materials and Methods Within 1 week after suture removal, 18 patients received low‐energy CO 2 FL therapy on their incisional wounds from facial or neck surgery. The treatments were performed once every 3 months for 1–3 sessions. After the surgical treatment, we applied a topical gel that contained recombinant human epidermal growth factor (EGF) on the incisional wounds to facilitate wound healing. The outcomes were evaluated by the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and a satisfaction survey (the quartile grading scale) before and 3 months after completing the therapy was conducted. During the same period, 15 patients who had not received any treatment for about one year after face and neck surgery were randomly selected as the untreated control group. Results In the treatment group, 18 patients had no obvious scar marks after the laser therapy. The satisfaction survey showed excellent outcomes in 16 (88.9%) patients and good outcomes in two (11.1%). After treatment, the average VSS scale and satisfaction score of the treatment group were 1.11 and 3.89, respectively; while the average VSS scale of the control group was 3.07 and the satisfaction score was 1.93. There were significant differences in VSS scale and satisfaction score between the treatment group and the control group ( P < 0.01). No adverse effects were observed. Conclusions Early intervention with CO 2 FL on surgical wounds achieved satisfactory outcomes in improving the surgical scars. Lasers Surg. Med. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations32
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLasers in Surgery and MedicineSame topicDermatologic Treatments and ResearchFrench-language works237,207