Assessment of laser‐assisted delivery vs intralesional injection of botulinum toxin A in treatment of hypertrophic scars and keloids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Keloids and hypertrophic scars could impair the psychological, physical, and cosmetic aspects of the patient's quality of life. Unfortunately, there is no curative treatment available till now. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intralesional vs topical botulinum toxin A combined with Fractional CO2 laser in the treatment of hypertrophic scars and keloids. Twenty patients with Keloids and hypertrophic scars were enrolled in the study. Each scar was divided into two halves, one subjected to intralesional injection of botulinum toxin type A once a month for 4 months and the other was subjected to four sessions of CO2 laser therapy at 1 month interval followed by topical application of botulinum toxin A. Significant improvement was noted in Vancouver Scar Scale in hypertrophic scars in laser group than intralesional botulinum toxin A. In keloid cases, the improvement was significantly higher with intralesional botulinum toxin A. Clinical improvement showed significant negative correlation with scar duration and size. Botulinum toxin A is a promising treatment for hypertrophic scars and keloids. The use of fractional CO2 laser as a mode of delivery enhanced the efficacy of botox in 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 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".