Efficacy of surgery combined with photodynamic therapy or triamcinolone acetonide for keloid treatment: An interim analysis of nine cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Photodynamic therapy emerged in the 1900s and recently, it has been developed as a novel modality for treating tumors, precancerous lesions, hypertrophic skin diseases, vascular diseases and so on. We aimed to compare the efficacy and adverse effects of surgery combined with photodynamic therapy or triamcinolone acetonide injection for keloid treatment. This self‐controlled study included nine patients with keloids. Two keloid sites were selected for each patient: one site received photodynamic therapy (PDT group) and the other site received local triamcinolone acetonide injections (TA group). All the keloids were surgically excised. The Vancouver Scar Scale and pruritus and pain scores were assessed at 3 and 6 months, respectively. At 3 and 6 months postoperatively, the pruritus and pain scores decreased significantly ( P < .01) and equally in both groups ( P > .05). At 6 months postoperatively, the PDT group showed the following results: complete cure, one patient; significantly effective, four patients; effective, four patients; and ineffective, no patient (efficacy, 100%). The TA group showed the following results: complete cure, one patient; significantly effective, three patients; effective, four patients; and ineffective, one patient (efficacy, 88.9%). Between‐group differences were not significant ( P > .05). Hyperpigmentation was observed (n = 2) in the experimental group, whereas menstrual disorders (n = 2), local capillary dilation (n = 1) and subcutaneous atrophy (n = 1) were observed in the TA group. Photodynamic therapy and local triamcinolone acetonide are equally and highly effective in treating keloids with few side effects and when combined with surgery.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".