Combination of keloid core excision and triamcinolone acetonide local injection shows significant clinical efficacy in treating auricular keloid
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
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical efficacy of keloid core excision combined with triamcinolone acetonide (TA) local injection for the treatment of auricular keloids. METHODS: From May 2019 to November 2021, 86 patients with auricular keloid who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled. Based on treatment modality, they were divided into two groups: a research group (n=43) receiving keloid core excision combined with TA local injection and a control group (n=43) undergoing keloid core excision alone. The clinical efficacy, postoperative adverse reactions, Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) score 12-Item Pruritus Severity Scale (12-PSS) score, sleep quality, serological indicators, Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) score, Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) score, Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36) scores, recurrence rate, and treatment satisfaction were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The research group showed superior overall clinical efficacy, higher SF-36 scores, fewer total adverse reactions, and better sleep quality compared to the control group. Additionally, the research group had lower VSS, 12-PSS, SAS, and SDS scores, more significant reductions in serological indicators, and a reduced recurrence rate. CONCLUSIONS: Keloid core excision combined with TA local injection was more effective than keloid core excision alone in treating auricular keloids, with significantly better clinical efficacy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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