A prospective study on the treatment of immediate post-operative scar with narrowband intense pulsed light under polarized dermoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(a) To evaluate the efficacy and safety of narrow-band intense-pulsed light (DPL) in immediate post-operative scar. (b) To observe the process of scar formation under dermoscopy in the first 6 months. Nine patients with postoperative scars were enrolled in the randomized, prospective, split-scar study. Patients were treated in one half of the scar with DPL for cosmetic improvement at a wavelength of 500-600 nm and the other half was not treated as control. The laser treatments were initiated 2 weeks after the surgery and were given 3 times over a 4-week period. All patients were followed-up for 3 months from the last treatment. Photographs and dermoscopy digital images were collected each time. (a) Neither DPL or control produce statistically significant improvements in Vancouver Scar Scale. Moreover, comparatively, there was no statistical difference in Vancouver Scar Scale between DPL or control. However, 6 out of 9 patients treated with DPL had reduced scores in vascularity sooner compared with control. (b) Under dermoscopy, redness, and swelling were obvious from 2 weeks after surgery, but were gradually alleviated. The surface of the scar gradually became uneven and rough. DPL might be beneficial in early recovery of immediate post-operative scar.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".