129 Are There Differences in Scar Assessments as a Function of Fitzpatrick Skin Type
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Skin type, as organized within the Fitzpatrick scale, may be an important variable in scar severity. Fitzpatrick skin type II (FST-II) and Fitzpatrick skin type V (FST-V) were chosen, to compare scar outcomes of lighter and darker skin patients with burn injuries. It was hypothesized that patients with FST-V skin have worse scar outcomes than patients with FST-II skin. Methods Demographic variables were obtained from the EMR including patient age, age of scar at time of assessment, gender, etiology of burn injury, and location of injury for this retrospective chart review. A variety of scar assessment scales and non-invasive measurements of scar qualities were administered during visits with the rehabilitation team around 4 months post-burn. These included The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) which was broken up into: POSAS-Observer (O) avg, POSAS-Patient (P) Itch, POSAS-P Pain, and POSAS-P avg. This evaluation also included the Vancouver Scar Scales (VSS), and pliability, erythema, and melanin objective measurements. Results Thirty patients were included in the analysis, 15 in each group. In FST-II, 53% of subjects were female, 47% were male. In FST-V, 33% of patients were male, while 67% were female (p>0.05). There are no significant differences in categorical patient age ( 42.2±4.6 vs 45.6±4). Approximately 67% of FST-II patients had flame burns, 33% scald injuries. Similarly 62% of FST-V subjects had flame burns, and 38% had scald injuries. The location of injuries was variable in both groups, but not different among groups. Scars were evaluated at 3.7±0.3 months with a range from 1-8 months post-burn and this evaluation time was not different between groups. For observer driven scar assessment (POSAS-O avg and VSS), there were no differences in scores between the groups (6.2±0.4 vs. 6.1±0.4 and 6.1±0.4 vs. 5.8±0.5). POSAS-P Itch scores and Melanin levels were higher in FST-V (7.3±0.6 vs. 5.3±0.7, p< 0.05, 896.4±9.5 vs. 727.2±9.8, p< 0.0001). Erythema was higher in FST-II (463.7±6.4 vs. 398.7±11.4, p< 0.0001). There was no statistical difference in POSAS-P Pain or pliability scores between FST-II and FST-V groups. Conclusions These findings suggest that patients rate their scars as being equally morbid regardless of skin type. There may be a correlation between higher melanin levels and pruritis in burn scars. Although scars in darker patients is thought to result in worse outcomes, the data shows that observers rate them equally. These findings bring into question the validity of current scar assessment scales and whether they adequately measure scars within different FST groups. Applicability of Research to Practice Performance of current scar scales in different skin types could affect treatment decisions. New metrics may need to be added to current scar assessment tools.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".