Pulsed dye laser versus ablative fractional <scp>CO<sub>2</sub></scp> laser in treatment of old hypertrophic scars: Clinicopathological study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is a continuous need to find out the best treatment for old hypertrophic scars (OHSs). Thirty patients with OHSs were included. Each scar was divided into right half treated with PDL (handpiece with a 7‐mm spot, pulse duration of 1.5 ms and fluence of 6 J/cm2) and left half treated with FrCo2 laser (15 W, spacing 800 μm, dwelling time 600 μs and stack 3) once every month for three sessions. Scars were assessed before and after treatment clinically by Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and histologically using hematoxylin and eosin (H&E), Masson trichrome and orcein stains. Both halves showed statistically significant improvement after treatment. However, there was no statistically significant difference in VSS between them (P = 0.176). FrCo2 laser showed more significant improvement in pliability and height (Pp = 0.017, Ph = 0,011), while, PDL showed more significant improvement in vascularity (P = 0.039) of OHSs. Both PDL and ablative FrCo2 laser were effective in the treatment of OHSs, however, FrCo2 laser was more effective in improving OHSs pliability, and height which are the main concern in OHSs.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".