ReviewClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology2025
A Comprehensive Review of Predictive Precision in Scar Medicine: From Molecular Predictors to Machine Learning Models.
Review in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Mechanistic insights into Strontium-90 superficial radiotherapy in keloids: senescence-associated changes and ECM remodeling across cell-matrix scales.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scars-including keloids, hypertrophic scars, and acne scars-pose substantial functional and psychosocial burdens that current empirical treatments often address by trial-and-error. Quantitative evidence now supports a precision framework. Validated clinical tools (eg, VSS, POSAS) and imaging modalities (3D photogrammetry; high-frequency ultrasound elastography) provide objective baselines, while emerging AI models deliver measurable gains: an automated scar-type classifier achieved precision 80.7%, recall 71.0%, AUC 0.846 for image-based categorization, and a clinical recurrence model for keloids reported AUC 0.889 with sensitivity 78.7% and specificity 86.8%, enabling earlier risk-stratified interventions and fewer ineffective treatment cycles in model-informed pathways. We synthesize cytokine/fibroblast signatures and genetic predisposition with multimodal (clinical-imaging-molecular) learning, detail validation challenges, and propose actionable safeguards (TRIPOD+AI-aligned reporting, internal-external validation, bias audits, SHAP-based interpretability, and federated learning to preserve privacy and improve generalizability). A pragmatic roadmap-including funding mechanisms, stakeholder roles, and a barrier-solution matrix-aims to accelerate translation toward predictive, preventive, and personalized scar care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.