536 Objective Quantification of Hypertrophic Scar and Donor Scar between 2 to 7 months Post-burn Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Very few objective scar evaluations have been conducted with the burn survivor population, which limits our knowledge of the clinical recovery profile of hypertrophic scars (HSc) and donor site scars (D), thus having an impact on rehabilitation intervention and treatment prioritization. The purpose of this study was to prospectively quantify the thickness, pliability, erythema and pigmentation of post-burn HSc, donor sites (normal scar) and normal skin in different anatomical locations between 2 and 7 months post-burn using objective instrumentation. A secondary objective was to compare this data with anatomic-specific normative data using the same objective instrumentation. Methods Skin characteristics of HSc, D and N in 44 burn survivors were measured at 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 months post-burn using validated instrumentation: high-frequency ultrasound for thickness, Cutometer® to measure pliability and Mexameter® to measure erythema and pigmentation. Up to five sites were assessed on the same participant if their scar was located on the upper extremity (UE), lower extremity (LE) and trunk. A mixed model two-way analysis of variance was used to investigate the differences in means between sites at each time point and between time points at each site. Results The results revealed that HSc sites were thicker than D and N at all time points and UE and trunk HSc were thicker than LE HSc at 7 months post-burn, pliability of trunk HSc did not improve over time, and UE HSc was more erythematous at 7 months compared to other anatomical sites whereas D erythema decreases from 2 to 7 months. Conclusions Scar management treatments should prioritize the UE and trunk sites which developed HSc during the first two months post-burn and continues to vary significantly from normal scar and normal skin at 7 months. Furthermore, these results provide preliminary evidence that the recovery profile of HSc varies at different anatomical sites and that thickness is the characteristic that distinguishes HSc from normal scar and normal skin.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".