Combination of fractional carbon dioxide laser and topical triamcinolone vs intralesional triamcinolone for keloid treatment: A randomised clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To compare the therapeutic effect of fractional carbon dioxide (CO2) laser + topical triamcinolone (TA) with intralesional TA on keloids. Twenty‐two participants were randomised into two groups: group A, treated with fractional CO2 laser + topical TA, and group B, treated with intralesional TA. The interventions were performed at every 4‐week interval until the keloids were resolved or at the completion of 1 year. At each session, the scar volume, Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) were assessed. Recurrence was observed for 1 year. The mean scar volumes and VSS scores were not significantly different between the two groups. After 1 year, the scar volume change in group B was greater than group A (86.5% vs 59.1%, P‐value = .016). The mean VSS scores were significantly decreased in group A (8.0 ± 1.5 to 4.8 ± 1.6, P‐value <.001) and group B (8.4 ± 0.8 to 4.8 ± 1.6, P‐value <.001). The keloids were completely resolved in 63.6% and 72.7% of the patients, and recurrence was observed in 9.1% and 18.2% of the patients in groups A and B, respectively. The combination of fractional CO2 laser with topical TA was an alternative option for the treatment of 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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".