Novel needle‐type electrocoagulation and combination pharmacotherapy: Basic and clinical studies on efficacy and safety in treating keloids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Aim Keloids cannot be effectively treated using monotherapy regimens. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ablation (a novel needle‐assisted electrocoagulation technique) combined with pharmacotherapy (corticosteroid and 5‐fluorouracil [5‐FU] injections) in removing keloids and to investigate the underlying biological mechanisms. Methods The effects of energy consumption and duration of needle‐assisted electrocoagulation on the ablation zone were tested in porcine liver tissue, which simulates human skin. The regulatory effects of ablation combined with pharmacotherapy on collagen deposition, cell proliferation, and angiogenesis were analyzed in a keloid‐bearing nude mouse model in vivo. In a clinical trial involving six patients with keloids, the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) scores were graded before treatment and 1 month after one cycle of ablation combined with corticosteroid and 5‐FU therapy. Results Higher energy consumption and longer duration of electrocoagulation resulted in a larger ablation zone and higher surface temperature. Ablation combined with pharmacotherapy significantly reduced keloid volume in nude mice, upregulated MMP‐1 and MMP‐3, downregulated COL I and COL III, and inhibited angiogenesis and proliferation. This combination also significantly reduced the VSS and POSAS scores in patients with keloids after treatment without any obvious adverse events. Conclusion Our findings show that electroablation combined with pharmacotherapy effectively reduces keloid volume by inhibiting collagen deposition, angiogenesis, and cell proliferation. Thus, this novel combination may serve as a safe therapeutic approach for keloid removal.
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) | 0.001 | 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".