Efficacy of fractional carbon dioxide laser-assisted drug delivery in the management of post-burn scars – A prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of our study is to assess the efficacy of fractional carbon dioxide (CO2) laser-assisted drug delivery (LADD) in the management of post-burn scars. Material and Methods: It is a prospective study conducted from March 2021 to February 2022, with 32 patients ranging in age from 9 to 52 years. The scars lasted anywhere from 6 months to 18 years. The ethical clearance of the Institutional Ethics Committee was obtained. The patient's median age was 22 (range, 09-52). Patients were assessed using a modified Vancouver scar scale (mVSS) score before and after receiving fractional CO2 laser at monthly intervals. Results: After one treatment, statistically significant improvements in pigment, thickness, and pliability were seen according to the mVSS scores, and these improvements persisted through the final laser session. Conclusion: Our study has demonstrated that fractional CO2 LADD seems to be an encouraging approach in the management of post-burn scars with good patient satisfaction.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".