Effect of Polarized Light on Post Burn Hypertrophic Scars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Hypertrophic scar (HTS) formation after burn remains a major issue for burned patients and is considered a huge problem for clinicians because the hypertrophic scar is painful, reddish, elevated, pruritic, and aesthetically unacceptable. Purpose. To study the effect of polarized light therapy (PLT) on post burn HTS. Materials and Methods. Thirty patients complaining of HTS formation after thermal burn with ages ranged from 20 to 40 years shared in this study and were randomly distributed into two matching groups in number (15 patients for each group). Group A (Study group): received 10 min. PLT 3 sessions/week plus silicone gel sheet (SGS) kept for 12 hours/day, medical treatment such as (hydration creams and antihistamine drugs), and routine physical therapy (splinting, massage therapy, stretching exercises, and strengthening exercises) for 2 months. Group B (Control group): received SGS kept for 12 hours/day, medical treatment such as (hydration creams and antihistamine drugs), and routine physical therapy (splinting, massage therapy, stretching exercises, and strengthening exercises) for 2 months. Methods of evaluation included Vancouver scar scale (VSS) to measure four parameters of hypertrophic scar (height, vascularity, pigmentation, and pliability) and photographic method to allow for visual assessment of the scars. Results. Comparison between post-treatment and pre-treatment in the study group showed a significant decrease in height, vascularity, pigmentation, and pliability scores (p > 0.01). There was a significant decrease in height and pliability scores of the study group in comparison with that of the control group (p < 0.01), while there was no significant difference in vascularity and pigmentation between groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion. PLT is an effective, easy to apply, and non-invasive treatment modality in post burn HTS.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".