Clinical research of micro-plasma technology in the treatment of stable scars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To observe the efficacy and safety of micro-plasma technology for the treatment of stable scars. Methods 63 cases were divided into 4 groups, including burn scar group (28 cases), traumatic scar group(15 cases), acne scar group(10 cases), and hemangioma scar group (10 cases). Micro-plasma was performed every 2 months, 4 times as one session. Vancouver scar scale(VSS) was used to record the scar score and evaluate its clinical efficacy. Results All of the scar points in four groups dropped significantly after treatment, showing significant difference between groups(P<0.05). The point decrease rate in acne scar group and burn scar group was significantly higher than that in traumatic scar group and hemangioma scar group (P<0.05). Efficacy evaluation also showed obvious better effect in acne and burn scar than in traumatic scar (P<0.05). Conclusions The micro-plasma has a good effect on burn, trauma, acne and hemangioma scar, especially for burn and acne scar. Key words: Micro-plasma radio-frequency; Cicatrix
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) | 0.002 | 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".