Comparison of intralesional triamcinolone acetonide alone and with 5 -fluorouracil for the treatment of keloids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the efficacy of intralesional triamcinolone acetonide alone and in combination with 5 -fluorouracil in the management of keloids. METHODS: The prospective cross-sectional study was conducted at the Dermatology outpatient department, Ojha campus, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, from April to September 2023, and comprised patients with keloids who were divided into group A receiving intralesional triamcinolone acetonide 40mg/ml alone, and group B receiving a combination of triamcinolone acetonide 40mg/ml and 5-fluorouracil 50mg/ml. The medication was given monthly for 6 months, and efficacy was assessed using the Vancouver Scar Scale on each visit before the injection. Data was analysed with SPSS version 26. RESULTS: Of the 66 patients, 33(50%) were in group A; 19(57.6%) females and 14(42.4%) males with mean age 34.39±9.81 years. There were 33(50%) patients in group B; 20(60.6%) females and 13(39.4%) males with mean age 33.75±11.51 years. In group B, good to excellent response was seen in 31 (95%) cases compared to 23 (70%) in group A. Side effects such as atrophy (3 cases, 9.1%) and telangiectasia (2 cases, 6.1%) were more prevalent in Group A compared to atrophy (1 case, 3%) and telangiectasia (1 case, 3%) in Group B. Conclusion: Intralesional triamcinolone acetonide in combination with 5-fluorouracil was found to be more effective with faster response and less side-effects compared to triamcinolone acetonide alone.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".