Effect of botulinum toxin type A for treating hypertrophic scars: A split‐scar, double‐blind randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypertrophic scars (HS) are a challenging disorder that mostly develops during wound-healing process following skin injuries. METHODS: A split-scar, double-blind randomized controlled trial was held to assess the safety and efficacy of botulinum toxin type A (BTA) injection in hypertrophic scars (HS). Thirty patients with old scars (range: 1-15 years) were treated, with sides randomized to receive treatment with either BTA or 0.9% normal saline once monthly for three consecutive months. Scars were assessed using the Vancouver scar scale (VSS) along with digital photograph standardization. RESULTS: Twenty-one subjects completed the study. The mean VSS score for the BTA-treated half of the scars decreased from 7.29 ± 2.327 before injection to 5.33 ± 2.41 following injection which was highly significant (P = .01). For the control half, the mean VSS decreased insignificantly from 7.29 ± 2.327 before injection to 7.10 ± 2.234 following injection (P = .104). CONCLUSION: Clinical and cosmetic improvement was demonstrated significantly among the BTA-treated group. BTA can be an additional and useful tool for improving scar outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".