Follicular unit “exploitation”: Follicular unit extraction followed by laser hair reduction—A novel approach to repigmentation of postburn leukodermic scars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Correction of depigmentation of postburn leukodermic scars is daunting. In contrast to vitiligo, the success rate of skin grafting techniques is much lower in postburn scars owing to altered skin architecture and poor graft uptake. Cellular transfer techniques such as noncultured epidermal or epidermal or keratinocyte suspension suffer the limitations of modest efficacy and high procedural cost. Follicular transplantation by the follicular unit extraction technique is being extensively used in vitiligo. Recently, it has been reported for the correction of scar alopecia. Although this approach is expected to significantly repigment pliant scars, the cosmetic unacceptability of the retained hairs may warrant removal. We describe an innovative three-step protocol to provide a repigmented smooth scar. We vernacularly labeled this technique follicular unit "exploitation," as the follicular units "exploited" positively for repigmentation were later removed by laser hair reduction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".