Efficacy of Botulinum Toxin A in Preventing Recurrence Keloids: Double Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial Study: Intraindividual Subject.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Keloids have been one of the most concerning problems in cosmetic surgery. Current treatments still provide unpredictable outcomes. Interestingly, one molecular study of Botulinum Toxin A (BTXA) has found the inhibitive effect of fibroblast growth factor (TGF-β), which explain the mechanism of keloid formation. Objective: To study the efficacy of BTXA in preventing keloids formation for clinical use. Material and Method: Prospective randomized controlled trial study was conducted on 25 patients between March 2014 and June 2015. Fifty keloids from 25 patients were equally randomized into two groups, control and toxin group. After the scar excision, the control group was injected with corticotherapy, while the toxin group was injected with BTXA. The outcomes were assessed and evaluated using Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) by two plastic surgeons. The VSS was compared between pre- and post-operative period. Follow-up protocols were made in both groups at 1-, 3-, and 6-month after surgery. Results: According to the first and third-month follow-up, the outcome in toxin group was more favorable than the control group (6.22±1.72 vs. 5.89±1.83, p = 0.347), whereas the outcome in control group was more favorable than the toxin group in the sixth month follow-up (5.33±1.87 vs. 4.11±1.96, p = 0.010). Conclusion: BTXA is not significantly better in preventing recurrence keloids when compared to corticotherapy after one and three months. However, Corticotherapy provides a significantly better outcome than BTXA at 6-month follow-up.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".