Effects of Performing Low-Level Laser on Cesarean Section Scar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Evaluating the effects of low-level laser (LLL) application on pain relief and abdominal scar formation in cesarean section (C-section) incision. Materials and Methods: The present prospective trial included 65 patients who referred to Amiralmomenin hospital of Semnan University of Medical Sciences for their first C-section. They were divided into intervention and control groups and LLL therapy was used in the intervention group after the randomization process. Then, scar formation and the level of pain in the incision site were evaluated after LLL imitation on 1, 3, 5, and 7 days of the post-partum period. As regards the scoring of the scar appearance and pain, 2 scoring methods were utilized, including Vancouver scar scale and visual analog scale. Results: A statistically significant difference was found between intervention and control groups in terms of pain score on days 5th and 10th of the post-partum period (P=0.000) and patients in the intervention group had a lower complaint of pain. However, no significant difference was detected between the 2 groups regarding Vancouver scar scale score which was used for scar formation in C-section incision. Conclusions: Overall, although pain relief is one of the most important complaints which patients suffer during the post-surgery period, other issues should be taken into account as well. By using this protocol, our study failed to prove the prophylactic role of LLL intervention in abdominal scar growth which is considered as another important point cosmetically. Accordingly, future studies might confirm the best protocol respecting preventing the scare formation with higher scale scores and reducing the pain.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".