Systematic Quantification of Hypertrophic Scar in Adult Burn Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Very few objective scar evaluations have been conducted with burn survivors, which limits our knowledge of the clinical recovery profile of hypertrophic scars (HSc) and donor site scars (D). The purpose of this study was to prospectively quantify the skin characteristics of post-burn HSc in different anatomical locations (D) and normal skin (N) using objective instrumentation. The skin characteristics of HSc, D, and N in 44 burn survivors were measured at 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 months post-burn using validated instrumentation: a high-frequency ultrasound (for thickness), Cutometer® (for pliability), and Mexameter® (for erythema and pigmentation). Up to five sites were assessed on the same participant, if their scar was located on the upper extremity (UE), lower extremity (LE), and trunk. A mixed model two-way analysis of variance was used to investigate the differences in means between sites at each time point and between time points at each site. The results revealed that the HSc sites were thicker than the D and N at all time points; the UE and trunk HSc were thicker than the LE HSc at 7 months post-burn; the pliability of the trunk HSc did not improve over time; and the UE HSc was more erythematous at 7 months, compared to other anatomical sites, whereas the D erythema decreased from 2 to 7 months. As clinicians have prioritized UE treatments due to their functional importance, this study provides objective measurements to further support this practice and encourages clinicians to also prioritize trunk HSc treatments after burn injuries.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".