COMPARATIVE STUDY OF EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF INTRALESIONALTRIAMCINOLONE ACETONIDE VERSUS INTRALESIONAL 5-FLUOROURACILVERSUS COMBINATION OF BOTH IN MANAGEMENT OF KELOIDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: keloid is a benign overgrowth of brotic tissue and are aesthetically unacceptable to the patients. Management is difcult and pose a challenge for physicians. This study compares the efcacy and safety of intralesional triamcinolone acetonide, intralesional 5-uorouracil and combination of both in management of keloids. METHOD: Total 60 patients, randomly divided into three groups: A, B, C were subjected to intralesional Triamcinolone acetonide, 5- Fluorouracil and their combination respectively, every 3weeks for 18 weeks and assessed with Vancouver Scoring Scale. RESULTS:Improvement seen in all parameters, maximum with combination of triamcinolone and 5-uorouracil. Major side effects were hypopigmentation with intralesional triamcinolone; pain and hyperpigmentation with intralesional 5- uorouracil and mild pain with combination of two. CONCLUSION: Combination of 5-uorouracil and triamcinolone acetonide seemed to be more effective with lesser side effects than the other two.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".