A clinical study of carbon dioxide lattice laser–assisted or microneedle‐assisted 5‐aminolevulinic acid–based photodynamic therapy for the treatment of hypertrophic acne scars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the clinical efficacy, recurrence rate and safety of 5-aminolevulinic acid-based photodynamic therapy (ALA-PDT) combined with microneedle or CO2 lattice laser (CO2FL), in comparison with intrascar betamethasone injection in the treatment of hypertrophic acne scar. METHODS: Fifty-two patients with hypertrophic acne scars at the mandibular angle were enrolled and assigned to different therapy groups. Sixteen patients were treated with microneedle-assisted incorporation of ALA. Twenty-eight patients underwent CO2FL-assisted incorporation of ALA. Eight patients received standard therapy with intrascar injection of glucocorticoid. Two dermatologists, blinded to the therapy groups, independently evaluated the scars in all patients using the average value of the Vancouver Scar Scale score, which was treated as an integer variable. RESULTS: After three rounds of treatment, there was no significant difference in therapeutic effective rate among the microneedle, laser and topical glucocorticoid groups (93.75% vs 100% vs 100%, P = .855). One out of 16 patients (6.25%) in the microneedle group, no patient (0%) in the laser group and two out of eight patients (25%) in the topical glucocorticoid group had recurrence. The laser group showed a higher rate of adverse effects, which were usually mild and reversible, except for pigmentation. Adverse reactions could be completely subsided within 3 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Either CO2FL or microneedle combined ALA-PDT for hypertrophic scar, as to topical glucocorticoid therapy, showed equivalent clinical effects but lower recurrence rate within 6 months of follow-up period.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".