The Effectiveness of Early Combined CO2 Ablative Fractional Laser and 595-nm Pulsed Dye Laser Treatment After Scar Revision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Scars are significant complications of wound healing and associated with negative physical, psychological, and cosmetic effects. Scar revision and laser treatment have been used over the past century to improve many different types of scars. Here, we evaluated the effectiveness of early combined carbon dioxide ablative fractional laser (AFL) and pulsed dye laser (PDL) treatment after scar revision. Fourteen patients who underwent scar revision were enrolled. All patients were treated with both a 10,600-nm AFL and a 595-nm PDL commencing 2 weeks after scar revision and continuing at 4-week intervals for a total of 4 treatments. Vancouver Scar Scale scores were evaluated before treatment and 5 months after the final treatment. All Vancouver Scar Scale scores improved significantly except that of scar height. We encountered no adverse complications (wound disruption, or hyper- or hypopigmentation) during follow-up. Early combined carbon dioxide AFL and PDL treatment after scar revision effectively and safely minimized scar formation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".