The Detroit Keloid Scale: A Validated Tool for Rating Keloids
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Comparing keloid treatment modalities and assessing response to treatments may be predicted by a better classification system. Objectives: To develop and validate the Detroit Keloid Scale (DKS), a standardized method of keloid assessment. Methods: Forty-seven physicians were polled to develop the DKS. The scale was validated in 52 patients against the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). Results: The inter-rater reliability was “substantial” for observer DKS and only “moderate” for VSS and observer POSAS (intraclass correlation coefficient were 0.80, 0.60, and 0.47, respectively). Pearson's correlation indicated “moderate” association between observer DKS with observer POSAS ( ρ = 0.56, p < 0.001) and “substantial” relationship between observer DKS and VSS ( ρ = 0.63, p < 0.001). Pearson's correlation indicated “moderate” association between patient portion of DKS and patient portion of POSAS and patient portion of the DKS and DLQI (0.61 and 0.60, respectively, p < 0.05). DKS total score consistently showed significant “substantial” relationship with POSAS total score ( ρ = 0.65, p < 0.001). Conclusions: The DKS offers a validated keloid-specific outcome measure for comparing keloid treatments.
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it