Impact of laser treatment on hypertrophic burn scars in pediatric burn patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paediatric patients with hypertrophic burn scars benefit from laser treatment, but this treatment's effectiveness on burn wounds stratified by specific body region and prior burn wound therapy has not been fully evaluated. We performed a single center retrospective study of pediatric burn patients, treated with fractional CO2, with or without pulse dye, laser between 2018-2022. We identified 99 patients treated with 332 laser sessions. Median age at the time of burn injury was 4.0 years (IQR 1.7, 10.0) and 7.1 years (IQR 3.6, 12.2) at the time of first laser treatment. In the acute setting, 55.2 % were treated with dermal substrate followed by autografting, 29.6 % were treated with dermal substrate alone, and 9.1 % underwent autografting alone. Most body regions showed improvement in modified Vancouver Scar Scale (mVSS) score with laser treatment. mVSS scores improved significantly with treatment to the anterior trunk (-1.18, p = 0.01), arms (-1.14, p = 0.003), and legs (-1.17, p = 0.015). Averaging all body regions, the mVSS components of pigmentation (-0.34, p < 0.001) and vascularity (-0.47, p < 0.001), as well as total score (-0.81, p < 0.001) improved significantly. Knowing the variable effectiveness of laser treatment in pediatric burn scars is useful in counseling patients and families pre-treatment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".