A Comparative Study: Superficial Shaving Combined With Photodynamic Therapy Versus Cryotherapy in the Treatment of Recalcitrant Plantar Warts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Plantar warts are a viral infectious lesion on the foot. The regression of plantar warts can be challenging despite the presence of a variety of available treatment modalities. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) has been recommended for the treatment of plantar warts. However, the effect of PDT in the treatment of plantar warts is not clear. Thus, we compared the efficacy of combining superficial shaving with PDT (SS-PDT) with that of cryotherapy in the treatment of recalcitrant plantar warts. STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-six patients with 271 warts received SS-PDT, and 26 patients with 147 warts received cryotherapy. For the SS-PDT group, the lesions were shaved in situ, and PDT was performed immediately. For the cryotherapy group, appropriate pressure was applied by freezing rod to fully freeze the lesion tissue. The overall clinical response effects, recurrence rates, adverse events, patient satisfaction and the quality of life were assessed. RESULTS: The SS-PDT group achieved a 91.3% success rate (defined as >50% on clearance) after treatment for 6 months, whereas only 23.1% of treatment in the cryotherapy group was successful. After 6 months of follow-up, the recurrence rate in the SS-PDT group was significantly lower than that in the cryotherapy group (8.7% vs. 76.9%, P < 0.001). The patients with SS-PDT were more satisfied with the treatment than the patients with cryotherapy (8.8 ± 1.4 vs. 4.9 ± 1.4, P < 0.001). Moderate pain was the main adverse event in SS-PDT, and cryotherapy may cause severe pain and blistering. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that superficial shaving combined with PDT is promising as a safe and effective therapy for patients with plantar warts, especially for patients with multiple recalcitrant warts. Lasers Surg. Med. © 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.000 | 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".