The Efficacy of Intense Pulsed Light in the Treatment of Keloids and Hypertrophic Scars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Different therapies have been applied to keloids and hypertrophic scars. Intense pulsed light (IPL) has recently been used but the evidence is limited. This study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IPL as monotherapy for keloids and hypertrophic scars. Methods: This was a before-and-after interventional study on 16 patients with 50 scars who underwent IPL. Seven scars receive one IPL session, seven received two sessions, and 36 received three sessions. Outcomes were evaluated by the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), scar ultrasound, colorimeter for pigmentation and erythema, and side effects. Results: After the treatment, most outcomes significantly improved except that the pigmentation of the scars did not change. Scar thickness significantly reduced by nearly 10% after the first IPL session, 15% after the second session, and>20% after the third session. All side effects were mild with crust (33.3-46%), blisters (8.3-40%), and hyperpigmentation around the scar (0-14%); the pain was moderate as assessed by the patients. Conclusions: IPL is a safe and effective treatment for keloids and hypertrophic scars. More studies are required to confirm our results.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, 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".