Improvement of Burn Scars Treated With Fractional Ablative CO2 Lasers—A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Using the Vancouver Scar Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fractional ablative CO2 laser is being used increasingly to treat burn scars; however, objective measures of outcome success vary widely. This systematic review and meta-analysis extracts and pools available data to assess the outcomes of patients with burn scars treated with fractional ablative CO2 laser. A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the gray literature was performed. The review included studies that reported patients with a confirmed diagnosis of scarring as a result of a burn injury, who were treated with fractional ablative CO2 laser and whose progress was recorded using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). Eight studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Treatment regimens varied amongst studies, as did patient outcomes. Pooled data revealed an average VSS improvement of 29% across 282 patients following fractional CO2 ablative laser treatment. Although the heterogeneity of treatment regimens across studies limits this systematic review's ability to provide specific treatment recommendations, the overall trend towards improvement of burns scars treated with fractional CO2 laser based on the VSS encourages further exploration of this modality as a therapeutic tool.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".