Electrophotobiomodulation in the treatment of facial post-burn hypertrophic scars in pediatric patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertrophic scar continues to be one of the leading reasons for surgical and non-surgical treatments after burn healing. Facial post-burn hypertrophic scars can cause severe functional and emotional disability, as they are usually difficult to conceal. Numerous nonsurgical and surgical therapies have been used for the treatment of hypertrophic scars. This study describes the combination of bipolar radiofrequency, intense pulsed light and cooling (given the collective term 'E-light'), and reports the outcomes of its use in the treatment of post-burn facial hypertrophic scars in a series of sixty-five patients in the pediatric age group. There were no reports in the literature of the use of this modality (E-light) in the treatment of facial post-burn hypertrophic scars in pediatric patients. Results showed that the mean decrease in total VSS score for all patients was 5.8. Regarding the satisfaction of the parents of our patients, 66.15% rated the result excellent, 24.61% rated it good and 9.23% rated it fair. We received no poor ratings for the final result, with a significant reduction in total Vancouver scar scale after treatment (P-value = 0.000). The E-light therapy technique studied in this work is effective, safe and economical if compared to other treatment modalities that can be used in the management of facial post-burn 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 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".