Efficacy of Punch Excision Combined With Superficial X‐Ray for the Treatment of Keloids: A Single‐Center Retrospective Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Keloid management remains a challenge for clinicians. Recently, punch excision and photoelectric technology have demonstrated promising clinical applications for managing keloids; however, few studies have examined the efficacy and safety of punch excision combined with superficial X‐ray for treating keloids. Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of punch excision combined with superficial X‐ray for treating keloid. Methods: In this retrospective study, we analyzed the clinical records of 60 patients with keloid scars who underwent punch excision combined with superficial X‐ray at our hospital, from April 2020 to April 2023. The Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) 2.0 Patient Scale serve as the primary assessment tools to evaluate all patients, both prior to the initial treatment and one year after the completion of therapy. SPSS software was used for statistical analysis to assess keloid improvement. Results: In the 60 patients with keloids, varying degrees of improvement were observed. The VSS and POSAS scores recorded 1 year after treatment were significantly lower than the pretreatment scores ( p < 0.001). No severe adverse reactions were observed during treatment. Conclusion: The combination of punch excision and superficial X‐ray demonstrated a notable therapeutic effect on keloids without evident adverse reactions, offering a safe and effective option for patients with keloids. Trial Registration: Chinese Registry of Clinical Trials: ChiCTR2400094289
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.
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 it