Efficacy of fractional carbon dioxide laser (FCO<sub>2</sub>) with intralesional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in the treatment of keloids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Managing keloids remains a challenge in clinical practice. Many therapeutic options are available, but none is universally accepted or without recurrence. Therefore, an effort is required to choose the treatment with maximal outcomes.To evaluate the effectiveness of combining fractional carbon dioxide (FCO2) laser and intralesional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) for the treatment of keloids.In this prospective open-label study, 24 patients received FCO2 laser treatment, started at baseline, for a total of six sittings. The patients also received 1 mL/cm2/keloid of 5-FU (50 mg/mL) intralesionally, following irradiation, at identical time points. The primary outcome evaluated was the clinical response concerning height, pliability, vascularity, and pigmentation, using the Vancouver Score Scale (VSS). Adverse reactions and recurrences were recorded as secondary outcomes.A significant reduction was observed in the VSS in terms of pliability and height after three treatment sessions. The mean VSS reduction was 65%, from 8.45 ± SD 0.93 at baseline to 3 ± SD 1.8 one month after the last treatment (P < 0.05). Most patients (79.1%; n = 19) showed a satisfactory response to treatment, with 57.8% (n = 11) achieving an excellent result. Adverse reactions included post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation in four patients and ulceration in two. Recurrences were reported in 21% of the patients who responded well.Combination therapy with FCO2 laser and intralesional 5-FU showed a promising effect in the treatment of resistant keloids, with an acceptable safety profile and low recurrence rate.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".