MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386993680 · doi:10.1186/s13287-023-03480-8

Efficacy of fractional CO2 laser in combination with stromal vascular fraction (SVF) compared with fractional CO2 laser alone in the treatment of burn scars: a randomized controlled clinical trial

2023· article· en· W4386993680 on OpenAlex
Masoumeh Roohaninasab, Fariba Khodadad, Afsaneh Sadeghzadeh‐Bazargan, Najmolsadat Atefi, Sona Zare, Alireza Jafarzadeh, Seyyedeh Tahereh Rahimi, Maryam Nouri, Mohammad Ali Nilforoushzadeh, Elham Behrangi, Azadeh Goodarzi

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueStem Cell Research & Therapy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTehran University of Medical Sciences and Health ServicesIran University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsMedicineScarsStromal vascular fractionLaserSurgeryStromal cellPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The appearance of skin scars is known as one of the main side effects of skin burns. Stromal vascular fraction (SVF), as a rich source of cell populations with tissue regeneration properties, plays an important role in the healing of skin lesions. Fractional CO 2 lasers have occupied a special place in treating skin lesions, particularly skin scars, since their introduction. Our study aimed to compare the combination of SVF and fractional CO 2 laser with fractional CO 2 laser alone in the treatment of burn scars. Method This double-blind clinical trial study was conducted on ten patients with burn scars that were treated three times with a fractional CO 2 laser at site of burn lesions, and one of the two areas studied was randomly injected with SVF. Two months after completion of the procedure, patients' scars were assessed using the Vancouver scar scale (VSS), biometric criteria, and physician and patient satisfaction ratings. Results The results confirmed a significant improvement in VSS, cutometry, R7 criteria, complete density sonography, and skin density sonography in the fractional CO 2 laser-treated group. The VSS criteria, epidermal thickness sonography, complete density sonography, and skin density sonography in the group treated with the combination of fractional CO 2 laser and SVF also showed significant improvement. The VSS criteria and melanin index of Mexameter in the group treated with SVF in combination with fractional CO 2 laser were significantly better than the group treated with fractional CO 2 laser alone. Also, physician and patient satisfaction in the group treated with SVF injection in combination with fractional CO 2 laser was significantly higher than the other group. Conclusion The results confirm the efficacy of SVF injection in combination with fractional CO 2 laser in the treatment of burn scars and can be considered as a treatment option for better management of these lesions. Trial registration : The study protocol was retrospectively registered at Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials with code: IRCT20210515051307N1, Registration date: 2021-11-14, URL: https://www.irct.ir/trial/56337 .

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it