The efficacy of single treatment of fractionated CO2 laser to improve scars in rhinoplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The formation of scars is fairly inevitable after open rhinoplasty and alar base procedures. Oftentimes, patients exhibit insecurities or discomfort at the appearance of these scars. CO2 laser resurfacing has been proposed as an effective treatment to minimize the appearance of surgical scars. Objective: To demonstrate the effectiveness of fractionated CO2 laser in the minimization of the appearance of surgical scars. Methods: Retrospective analysis of a rhinoplasty surgeon’s database as well as blinded grading of 54 consecutive alar wedge scars using Vancouver Scar Scales. Results: No complications were seen with the use of fractionated CO2 lasers as a treatment on rhinoplasty scars. No difference was seen in scar appearance, including scar height, vascularity, pliability, and scar height after one treatment of CO2 laser. Conclusion: A single treatment of fractionated CO2 laser does not improve scars. Multiple sessions of fractionated CO2 laser could be a more effective treatment for the appearance of surgical scars.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".