Sequential and Combined Efficacious Management of Auricular Keloid: A Novel Treatment Protocol Employing Ablative CO2 and Dye Laser Therapy—An Advanced Single-Center Clinical Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Auricular keloids pose significant aesthetic and functional challenges, and traditional treatments often fall short in addressing these issues. Our study presents an innovative combined approach of ablative CO2 and dye laser therapy for improved keloid management. This treatment protocol was applied to 15 patients with auricular keloids after an initial multispectral analysis to assess keloid composition. The laser sequence was tailored per patient based on this analysis. Evaluations using the Vancouver Scar Scale and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale were carried out at baseline and at 3-week intervals post-treatment. The results showed a significant reduction in these scores at the final follow-up (p < 0.05), suggesting improvements in keloid color, texture, and pliability, with minimal adverse events. Additionally, no recurrence of keloids was observed. Our findings indicate that this novel methodology of multispectral analysis followed by tailored laser therapy may offer a safe and effective solution for auricular keloids, promising enhanced keloid treatment and prevention of recurrence. However, further investigations, including randomized controlled trials, are needed to confirm and optimize this treatment protocol.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".