The effectiveness of long Pulsed Nd:YAG Laser alone for treatment of keloids and hypertrophic scars versus its combination with bleomycin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pathological scars are benign hyper-proliferative growths of dermal collagen that causes severe psychological and physical problems. This study was performed to assess and compare safety and clinical efficiency of combined pulsed Nd-YAG laser and intralesional bleomycin versus pulsed Nd-YAG laser alone to treat the hypertrophic scars and keloids. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Randomly, 40 patients with hypertrophic scars or keloids were divided into two groups A and B. Group A were handled by pulsed Nd:YAG laser and intralesional bleomycin while group B were handled by pulsed Nd:YAG laser only. Response was assessed subjectively by clinical imaging and modified Vancouver Scar Scale (mVSS). While for objective evaluation, skin biopsies were taken from volunteer patients before and after treatment, and were examined by Hematoxylin and eosin staining (H&E) and Masson trichrome staining. RESULTS: Our study demonstrated almost complete improvement in 4 (20%) patients, partial improvement in 16 (80%) patients and 0 patient with no improvement in group A. Furthermore, in group B, we demonstrated almost complete improvement in 2 (10%) patients, partial in 14 (70%) patients and no improvement in 4 (20%) patients. Modified Vancouver Scar Scale reduced from 10.15 to 3.5 in group A and from 11.05 to 4.95 in group B. Elastica Masson-Goldner staining and Hematoxylin and eosin staining showed that treatment in both groups structurally changed tissue collagen. CONCLUSION: Long-pulsed Nd-YAG laser combined with intralesional bleomycin could be a promising way for treatment of keloids or hypertrophic scars.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".