Efficacy of Low Level Laser Therapy versus Therapeutic Ultrasound on Pediatric Post Burn Hypertrophic Scars: A Scar Split Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. The treatment of scars caused by burn is a difficult challenge in developing countries that includes enormous treatment cost. Burn scars tend to get worse with hypertrophy and contracture, leading to limitations of function. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) to therapeutic ultrasound (US) on hypertrophic scar in pediatric burns. Methods. 45 children participated in the study, their age ranges from 12 to 15 years of age, suffering from hypertrophic scars. Each scar divided to 2 identical halves. One half received (LLLT) with deep friction massage and the other received therapeutic ultrasound with deep friction massage. Participants were assessed pre & post two months of study by Ultrasonography and Vancouver Scar Scale. Results. Significant improvement was reported in both halves of scar but laser was more effective in decreasing scar height, and lowering Vancouver scale score (p < 0.0001). Conclusion. LLLT and US are proficient and secure modalities for post-burn hypertrophic scars treatment in children.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".