A double‐blinded randomised control study to compare the effectiveness and safety of intralesional vitamin <scp>D<sub>3</sub></scp> with intralesional triamcinolone and its correlation with tissue expression of vitamin <scp>D</scp> receptors in patients with keloid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intralesional steroids commonly used for keloid treatment have adverse effects like cutaneous atrophy and telangiectasias. Safer and more effective therapies are needed. Preliminary studies suggest intralesional vitamin D as a potential alternative treatment. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy and safety of intralesional vitamin D with triamcinolone for keloids, and correlate tissue expression of vitamin D receptors (VDRs) with treatment outcomes. Sixty patients were randomly assigned to two groups: Group A (intralesional vitamin D) and Group B (intralesional triamcinolone). Four injections were given at 4-week intervals, with an 8-week follow-up. Biopsies were taken pre- and post-treatment to examine VDR expression levels and treatment response correlation. The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of patients achieving a 50% reduction in Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). Secondary outcomes included incidence of adverse effects, and changes in VDR expression before and after treatment. Baseline VSS scores were 9.73 ± 1.01 (vitamin D group) and 10.13 ± 1.07 (triamcinolone group). After treatment, mean VSS decreased to 5.17 ± 0.59 (vitamin D group, p < 0.001) and 4.77 ± 0.77 (triamcinolone group, p < 0.001), with significantly better response in latter (p = 0.03). More than 50% reduction in VSS score was higher in the triamcinolone group (76.7% vs. 50%, p = 0.032). No recurrences were noted during the 8-week follow-up. Hypopigmentation (80% vs. 36.7%, p < 0.001) and atrophy (73.3% vs. 40%, p = 0.009) were more common in the triamcinolone group. No significant difference in pre- and post-treatment VDR receptor expression was observed in either group. Both triamcinolone acetonide and vitamin D were effective for keloids. Triamcinolone was more efficacious, whereas vitamin D was safer, suggesting it as a viable alternative for keloid management.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".