A Single-Institution Experience With Standardized Objective and Subjective Scar Evaluation While Undergoing Fractional Ablative Carbon Dioxide Laser Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laser treatment of burn scar has increased in recent years. Standard components of scar evaluation during laser scar revision have yet to be established. Patients who began laser scar revision from January 2018 to 2020, underwent at least three treatments, and completed evaluations for each treatment were included. Patients underwent fractional ablative carbon dioxide laser scar revision and pre- and postprocedure scar evaluations by a burn rehabilitation therapist, including Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, Vancouver Scar Scale, our institutional scar comparison scale, durometry, and active range of motion measurements. Twenty-nine patients began laser scar revision and underwent at least three treatments with evaluations before and after each intervention. All patients improved in at least one scar assessment metric after a single laser treatment. After the second and third treatments, all patients improved in at least three scar assessment metrics. Range of motion was the most frequently improved. Durometry significantly improved after the third treatment. Patients and observers showed some agreement in their assessment of scar, but observers rated overall scar scores better than patients. Patients acknowledged substantial scar improvement on our institutional scar comparison scale. Burn scar improves with fractional ablative laser therapy in a range of scar ages and skin types, as early as the first session. Improvements continue as additional sessions are performed. This work suggests baseline evaluation components for patients undergoing laser and a timeline for expected clinical improvements which may inform conversations between patients and providers when considering laser for the symptomatic hypertrophic scar.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".