Laser therapy for treating cleft lip or/and palate scarring—a systematic review and meta-analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This review aims to assess the efficacy and safety of laser therapy in managing scars resulting from cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) repair surgeries, as well as to determine the optimal timing for intervention. A systematic search was conducted across four databases using a predefined search strategy. Studies included were randomized controlled trials, non-randomized studies, and case series focusing on laser therapy for CL/P scars. Data extraction and analysis were performed using Revman Software. A total of two randomized controlled trials, four non-randomized studies, and three case series were included in the analysis. The fractional CO 2 laser was the most commonly utilized type of laser. Following laser therapy, there was a significant decrease in Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores by 4.05 (95% CI, 2.10–5.99). Meta-analysis revealed that laser treatment groups exhibited a significantly lower mean VSS score (1.3; 95% CI, 0.02–2.67) compared to control groups. Moreover, initiating laser therapy intervention at one month postoperatively resulted in a significantly lower VSS score compared to initiation at three months postoperatively (difference of 1.70; 95% CI, 1.33–2.08). No severe complications were reported. Laser therapy demonstrates effectiveness and safety in improving CL/P scars, with earlier intervention yielding greater benefits.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it