Burns objective scar scale (BOSS): Validation of an objective measurement devices based burn scar scale panel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Hypertrophic scars in burn survivors are a major cause of morbidity but the development of evidence based treatments is hampered by the lack of objective measurements of these scars. The objective of our study is to investigate the most accurate parameters for objective scar assessment and to create a combination score to facilitate the use of a panel of objective scar measurement tools. METHODS: Three independent assessors evaluated fifty five scar sites on fifty five burn patients with both the subjective modified Vancouver Scar Scale (mVSS) and a panel of objective measurement tools including the DSM II Colormeter, Cutometer, Dermascan high frequency ultrasound. The sensitivity and specificity of the objective scar parameters in predicting a mVSS score of 6 or more using the Receiving Operator Characteristic Area under the curve (ROC AUC) was then calculated and the most accurate parameters were combined to create an objective global scar score. RESULTS: The ROC AUC values were found to be highest for the Dermascan scar thickness (0.897), dermal intensity and intensity ratio (0.914 and 0.919), Cutometer R0 value (0.942), and R0 ratio (0.944). For colour measurements, ratios of scar to normal skin performed better than the single parameters for both erythema and pigmentation measurements: DSM II Erythema ratio vs Erythema (0.885 vs 0.818), DSM II a* ratio vs a* (0.848 vs 0.741); DSM II Melanin ratio vs Melanin (0.854 vs 0.761), DSM II L* ratio vs L* (0.862 vs 0.767). Analysis of the ROC AUC with chi-square test values showed that the highest AUC (0.786) was obtained with the combination of the Cutometer R0, Dermascan scar thickness, intensity and their respective scar to normal skin ratios. A total score of 5 and above (out of 6 parameters) had the highest combined sensitivity (69.0%) and specificity (83.3%). CONCLUSION: The objective parameters for the DSM II Colormeter, Cutometer and Dermascan high frequency ultrasound were all found to have moderate to strong ROC AUC values and combination of the Cutometer R0 and Dermascan scar thickness and intensity values can be used to create an objective global scar scale that can accurately differentiate patients with hypertrophic burn scarring from non-hypertrophic scars or normal skin.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".