Clinical study of pulsed dye laser fine therapy for hypertrophic scar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of pulsed dye laser with different parameters in the treatment of hypertrophic scar after burn. Methods From January 2016 to June 2016, 122 patients with hypertrophic scar after burn were treated in our unit. The data were analyzed retrospectively. According to the pulse width and energy of pulsed dye laser treatment, there were 31 cases with 0.45 ms-low energy, 28 cases with 0.45 ms-high energy, 37 cases with 1.5 ms-low energy and 26 cases with 1.5 ms-high energy, which were treated once every 3-4 weeks. The Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) was used to evaluate the scar condition before and after treatment, and the pain of patients was scored by VAS before and after treatment. The blood flow of scar site was monitored before and 12 months after treatment, and the blood perfusion was recorded. The patients′satisfaction was recorded 3 to 6 months after treatment, and the satisfaction rate was calculated. Results ⑴ The VSS scores of 0.45 ms-low energy, 0.45 ms-high energy, 1.5 ms-low energy and 1.5 ms-high energy groups after treatment were significantly lower than those before treatment in each group (t=11.3, 9.0, 14.1, 12.7, P 0.05), but there was significant difference in the effect of other treatment groups(t=7.29, 4.81, 6.91, 5.11, 4.74, P 0.05). Conclusions The therapeutic effect of pulsed dye laser on hypertrophic scar is very exact, and the treatment parameters of 0.45 ms pulse width and low energy 4-6 J/cm2 are recommended, which provide clinical basis for the prevention and treatment of scar and the application of pulsed dye laser. It is worthy of clinical application. Key words: Cicatrix, hypertrophic; Lasers, dye; Laser therapy
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".