MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163375774

[P536] A case of hypertrophic scar treated with combination of intralesional triamcinolone injection and extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT)

2017· article· en· W3163375774 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ji Hyun Kim, Sook Hyun Kong, Seok Hyun Han, Yong Woo Oh, Ho Seok Suh, Yu Sung Choi

Bibliographic record

Venue프로그램북(구 초록집) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypertrophic scarKeloidVascularityTriamcinolone acetonideExtracorporeal shockwave therapySurgeryOrthopedic surgeryAnkle
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypertrophic scar derive from abnormal fibrous wound healing with malfunction of mechanisms controlling tissue repair and regeneration. The Modified Vancouver Scar Scale (moVSS), including height, pliability, vascularity and pigmentation is used to assess the scar condition. Many different treatment modalities including intralesional steroids and surgery have been offered, but the results are often unsatisfactory. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) is a transient short-term acoustic pulses successfully introduced in urologic lithotripsy and several orthopedic diseases. Furthermore, the potential use of ESWTs in promoting angiogenesis, decreasing inflammation and enhancing cell differentiation has been suggested. A 25-year-old female presented with a 2.0 x 0.6 sized linear erythematous plaque on the ankle. The patient was clinically diagnosed with hypertrophic scar and treated with intralesional triamcinolone injection for 3 months but the lesion showed no improvement. Then, we treated with ESWT and intraleisional triamcinolone injection at one-week interval. After the treatment, moVSS score decreased from 11 at week 0 to 7 at week 4. Herein, we report a case of hypertrophic scar successfully treated with combination of intralesional triamcinolone injection and ESWT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue프로그램북(구 초록집)Same topicTendon Structure and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207