A Single-Institution Experience About 10 Years With Children Undergoing Fractional Ablative Carbon Dioxide Laser Treatment After Burns: Measurement of Air Pressure-Induced Skin Elevation and Retraction Time (Dermalab) Including Standardized Subjective and Objective Scar Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laser treatment has gained more and more importance in the therapy of scars during the last years. Scientific work, especially in children, is scarce on this topic and mostly with an insufficient number of cases or only subjective descriptions. Our study included 77 children from 2012 to 2022 with scars after thermal injury. These were treated at least three times or more by CO2 laser or in combination with pulsed dyed laser (PDL). Beforehand, scar texture and elasticity were determined by a skin elasticity analysis system. Regarding the subjective evaluation, a questionnaire was given to the patients or their parents. Further criteria were the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) and Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). A statistically significant improvement in elasticity was demonstrated in all scars of any age after each laser treatment. In addition, a significant correlation was found between the number of laser treatments and an increase in elasticity. The assessments of scars after one or more laser sessions by the observer as well as the patient showed a decreasing score in all categories with an increase in the number of laser therapies. The VSS score also improved significantly after each laser session. The mean score before treatment was about 7, after the first laser session, the mean score was already below 6 with a statistical significance. Ninety-six percent of the patients or their parents were satisfied with the laser therapy, and 90% wished to repeat the procedure. This work confirms, by means of the objectification by the scar measurement, the previous scientific works concerning a scar therapy by laser and emphasizes particularly that this can also be used without problems with children with symptomatic scars, contractures, or with cosmetically relevant scars.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".