Fractional CO<sub>2</sub> laser is as effective as pulsed dye laser for the treatment of hypertrophic scars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Both pulsed dye laser (PDL) and fractional CO2 laser (FCO2L) are used commonly for the treatment of hypertrophic scars.Objective To compare the efficacy of PDL and FCO2L on hypertrophic scars.Patients and methods One part of each scar, or one of the two similar scars in 35 patients was treated with PDL and the other parts, or scars were treated with FCO2L. The parameters used for FCO2L were: power = 30 W, pulse energy = 50 mJ, density = 200 spots/cm2. The parameters used for 585 nm PDL were 9 J/cm2 with 5 mm spot size. The FCO2L side was treated for three passes to debulk the scar. The coagulated tissue was wiped out before the next pass. The PDL side was treated with two superimposed passes. The procedures were repeated every month for 4 months.Results After four sessions of laser therapy, both sides showed remarkable improvement but no meaningful difference was detected between two areas that were treated with PDL and FCO2Ls (p > .05). The mean Vancouver Scar Scale was 7.31 ± 1.93 in the beginning and 4.26 ± 1.48 for FCO2L and 4.33 ± 1.70 for PDL one months after the final session.Conclusions Both PDL and FCO2Ls were equally effective on hypertrophic scars.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".