Role of Triamcinolone Acetonide in the Maturation of Scars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Surgeons have tried various measures to achieve a minimum and aesthetically appealing scars after wound healing at surgical sites. Various regimens have been recommended to minimize scars both intraoperatively and postoperatively. Our study aims to assess the outcome of the injection of triamcinolone acetonide used intraoperatively on a normal surgical suture line. Methods: This is a prospective, observational study of 21 patients (divided into test and control groups with a single scar at the same site) treated with or without injection of triamcinolone acetonide, and outcomes were assessed using Vancouver Scar Scale and Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale. Results: > 0.05) between the median of vascularity, pigmentation, and total score on the Vancouver Scar Scale, whereas there was significant difference between height, color, and overall appearance according to the Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale between the test and the control group. We could not find a significant difference in outcome with varying, increasing doses of triamcinolone acetonide. Conclusion: A low dose of triamcinolone acetonide is an effective drug that tends to improve the outcome of a scar in terms of vascularity, pigmentation, height, and overall appearance of the postoperative surgical scar and helps in the maturation of a normal scar.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".