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/cm 2 ) 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 ( P p = 0.017, P h = 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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".