Ultra pulse CO2 laser Combining Deep FX and Scar FX for hyperplastic scar in face and neck
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the clinical curative effect of ultra pulse CO2 laser Combining Deep FX and Scar FXfor face and neck hyperplastic scar. Methods 146 patients with hyperplastic scar in face and neck treated at our hospital from February, 2016 to February, 2017 were selected as study objects divided into an observation group (n=93) and a control group (n=53) according to different methods. The observation group were treated with ultra pulse CO2 laser mode combining Deep FX mode or Scar FX mode 3 months after the injury, 3 months one time, 10-15 min per time. The control group were treated with lattice ultra pulse CO2 laser mode. The treatment effects of the two groups were compared. Results The Vancouver scar scale (VSS) scores before and after treatment were (9.46±1.78) and (2.86±1.14) in the observation group and were (9.27±1.58) and (4.76±1.64) in the control group, with statistical differences (P 0.05) . Conclusion Ultra pulse CO2 laser pulse combined with Deep FX mode or Scar FX mode for hyperplastic scar in face and neck is effective and do not increase the incidence of adverse reactions. Key words: Hyperplastic scar; Super pulse; Carbon dioxide; Lattice laser; Curative effect
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".