Correlation between elastic modulus and clinical severity of pathological scars: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 (EM WHOLE ), hardest part of the scar (EM HARDEST ), and normal appearance of the skin around the scar (EM NORMAL ) 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 EM WHOLE was less than 166.6 kPa or EM HARDEST 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 EM WHOLE and mVSS score in hypertrophic scars or keloids. However, the fully adjusted smooth curves presented a linear association between mVSS score and EM HARDEST 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 EM HARDEST 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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".