Photographic Assessment of Cosmetic Outcome in Postsurgical Facial Scars Favors Rapidly Absorbable Polyglactin 910 Over Fast Absorbing Gut: A Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No adequately powered, randomized studies have compared different absorbable suture types used for epidermal closure on facial scar cosmesis. OBJECTIVE: To assess postsurgical facial scar appearance using rapidly absorbable polyglactin 910 or fast absorbing gut for epidermal closure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Randomized, blinded, split-scar clinical trial of 5-0 rapidly absorbable polyglactin 910 (Vicryl Rapide) and 5-0 fast absorbing gut. Patients with facial wounds resulting from Mohs micrographic surgery (n = 105) were assigned for epidermal closure. One dermatologist and 1 plastic surgeon, blinded to original suture location, evaluated photographs of each healed scar at 6 months after surgery and graded each half of the scar using the visual analog scale (VAS), Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale (SBSES), and wound evaluation scale (WES). RESULTS: At 6 months, mean (SD) scores from the dermatologist all statistically favored rapidly absorbable polyglactin 910: VAS 76.5(14.5) versus 73.2(15.2), p = .05; SBSES 4.4(0.9) versus 4.0(1.1), p = .006; WES 5.4(1.0) versus 5.1(1.1), p = .05. Scores from the plastic surgeon also favored rapidly absorbable polyglactin 910 but were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Rapidly absorbable polyglactin 910, placed through the epidermis, was the favored absorbable suture material for facial epidermal closure.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".