Early Intervention With an Ultrapulse CO<sub>2</sub> Fractional Laser for the Treatment of Traumatic Facial Scars in Children: A Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: fractional lasers are increasingly used for scar treatment. However, the optimal timing for the treatment of traumatic facial scars in children is unclear. AIM: fractional laser treatment for immature facial scars in pediatric patients, with a focus on identifying the optimal timing to achieve the best possible outcomes. PATIENTS/METHODS: A total of 106 children with traumatic facial scars were divided into three groups according to when laser treatment was started post-procedure: 1 month (Group A), 3 months (Group B), and 6 months (Group C). Three months after two treatments, the therapeutic effects, adverse reactions, and satisfaction of the patients' families were compared between the three groups. RESULTS: After two treatments, the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores were significantly lower than before treatment in all groups (p < 0.001). Pairwise comparisons demonstrated statistically significant differences between Groups A and B, and between Groups A and C (p < 0.001). Adverse reactions were not significantly different among the three groups (p > 0.05). At the follow-up after two treatments, significantly more patients were very satisfied in Group A than in Groups B and C (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: fractional laser can effectively treat traumatic facial scars in children. The clinical effect and patient satisfaction were better with treatment initiated 1 month post procedure than with treatment 3-6 months post procedure. It has few adverse reactions and high safety and is worthy of clinical promotion and application.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".