Efficacy and safety of thermomechanical fractional injury‐assisted corticosteroid delivery versus intralesional corticosteroid injection for the treatment of hypertrophic scars: A randomized split‐scar trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Disruption of the natural skin barrier in a controlled manner may be used to deliver drugs that enhance scar resolution. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of thermomechanical fractional injury (TMFI)-assisted topical corticosteroid delivery with corticosteroid injection in the treatment of hypertrophic scar (HTS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a randomized, split-scar, double-blinded study. Twenty-one subjects with HTS on the abdomen received five split-scar treatments of TMFI + Steroid and steroid injection alone. Changes in scar thickness, scar volume, and Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) were analyzed. Patient self-assessment, VAS scores, and adverse effects were also evaluated. RESULTS: Scar thickness, volume, and VSS scores of both segments improved significantly compared to baseline. On every follow-up visit, there were no significant differences in mean scar thickness reduction between the two treatment groups except at the 6-month follow-up where the mean scar thickness reduction of the steroid injection segment was significantly lower than that of the TMFI + Steroid segment (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09-0.35; p = 0.002). Scar volume, VSS scores, and patient self-assessment also showed no significant differences between both segments on all visits. The steroid injection segment was significantly more painful than the TMFI + Steroid segment (95% CI, -2.16 to -1.29; p < 0.001). Adverse effects of skin atrophy, telangiectasia, and post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation were noted in the steroid injection segment, while no adverse effects were observed at the TMFI + Steroid segment. CONCLUSIONS: TMFI-assisted topical corticosteroid delivery is an effective treatment for HTS with a lower risk of adverse effects compared with corticosteroid injection.
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) | 0.001 | 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".