MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215861875 · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-02730-0

Correlation between elastic modulus and clinical severity of pathological scars: a cross-sectional study

2021· article· en· W3215861875 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jing Hang, Jie Chen, Weixin Zhang, Tao Yuan, Yang Xu, Bingrong Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJiangsu Provincial Key Research and Development ProgramGovernment of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCross-sectional studyPathologicalScarsCorrelationMedicineCross-correlationPathologyMathematicsStatisticsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Though widely used to assess pathological scars, the modified Vancouver Scar Scale (mVSS) is neither convenient nor objective. Shear wave elastography (SWE) is used to evaluate the stiffness of pathological scars. We aimed to determine the correlation between mVSS score and elastic modulus (EM) measured by SWE for pathological scars. Clinical information including ultrasound (US) results of the enrolled patients with pathological scars was analyzed. The clinical severity of the pathological scars was evaluated by mVSS. Skin stiffness, as represented by EM, was calculated using SWE. The average EM of the whole scar (EMWHOLE), hardest part of the scar (EMHARDEST), and normal appearance of the skin around the scar (EMNORMAL) were also recorded. Enrolled in this study were 69 pathological scars, including 28 hypertrophic scars and 41 keloids. The univariable regression analyses showed that the EM of pathological scars was closely related to mVSS score, while the linear multivariable regression analyses showed no significantly correlation. Curve fitting and threshold effect analysis revealed that when EMWHOLE was less than 166.6 kPa or EMHARDEST was less than 133.07 kPa, EM was positively correlated with mVSS score. In stratified analysis, there was no significant linear correlation and threshold effect between EMWHOLE and mVSS score in hypertrophic scars or keloids. However, the fully adjusted smooth curves presented a linear association between mVSS score and EMHARDEST in keloids (the adjusted β [95% CI] was 0.010 [0.001, 0.018]), but a threshold and nonlinear association were found in hypertrophic scars. When EMHARDEST was less than 156.13 kPa, the mVSS score increased along with the hardest scar part stiffness; the adjusted β (95% CI) was 0.024 (0.009, 0.038). In conclusion, EM of pathological scars measured by SWE were correlated with mVSS within a threshold range, and showed different association patterns in hypertrophic scars 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicDermatologic Treatments and ResearchFrench-language works237,207