Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis focuses on the use of high-intensity lasers in the treatment of chronic scars. The theoretical part provides general information about non-invasive lasers and their application in medicine. It also describes the issue of scars and various physiotherapy methods for influencing scars. The main purpose of the study was to record any subjective or objective changes in chronic post-operative scars (older than 3 months) after 6 applications of a high-intensity laser. A secondary goal was to compare these results with other studies. The research involved six probands (2 men and 4 women) aged between 20 and 63 years. Participants were selected based on their registration through a created informational leaflet. All probands underwent an entrance examination before the application of high- intensity laser therapy and an exit examination after its application. This examination included an anamnesis focused primarily on the patient's scar, palpation and visual inspection of the scar with photographic documentation, the use of the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) questionnaires, and diagnostic sonography using a 24 MHz probe (DICOM). The therapy was conducted using the Opton Pro 25 W high- intensity laser from Zimmer. The obtained results were highly...
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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 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".