Clinical and histopathological assessment of botulinum toxin-A injection for treatment of hypertrophic scars and keloids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Various treatments for hypertrophic scars (HTS) and keloids are available. Not all treatment modalities have been adequately tested. Recently, it has been shown that botulinum toxin type A (BTX) positively affects wound healing, so it might contribute in treating HTS and keloids. Objective To assess the effect of BTX intralesional injection as a monotherapy for the treatment of HTS and keloids clinically and histopathologically. Patients and methods A total of 30 patients with HTS and keloids were treated by intralesional injection of BTX as a monotherapy. Each lesion was injected with BTX (5 IU/cm 2 once every 4 weeks for four sessions). Immunohistochemical evaluation of the lesions before and after treatment was done. Moreover, Vancouver scar scale and clinical imaging were taken before and after treatment. Results There was a highly significant difference after treatment with BTX intralesional in both the epidermal thickness ( P =0.001) and area% of fibroblast dermis ( P =0.001). Additionally, there was a significant decline in Vancouver scar scale after treatment ( P <0.001). Conclusion BTX injection of HTS and keloids can be considered as a promising effective and well tolerated therapeutic option acting on fibroblast activity of HTS and keloids.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".