Comparision of clinical and histopathological results of hyalomatrix usage in adult patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical and histopathological results of the hyaluronic acid skin substitute treatment of the patients who admitted to Inonu University Medical Faculty Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery clinic between january 2011 and march 2012 were evaluated. The patients were divided into two groups. HA were used for treatment of Hypertrophic scar (HS) or Keloid (K) in 10 patients of the first group. Skin biopsies obtained at peroperative and postoperative 3rd month were subjected to histopathologic examination in this group. In the second group, 10 patients with full thickness soft tissue loss secondary to burns, trauma or excisional reasons were also treated with HA application. Vancouver scar scale were used to determine the scar quality in both groups. Mean age was 25. 2 ± 10.2 and mean follow-up duration was 6.3±3.6 months in group 1. Preoperative and postoperative VSS scores in group 1 were 10.7±1.16 and 6.2±0.91, respectively. This difference was statistically significant (p<0,005). No HS or K development was seen in any patient in group 2 during the following period. Collagenisation scores of preoperative skin biopsies were significantly higher than postoperative scores (p<0,0001).Vascularisation scores of preoperative skin biopsies were significantly lower than postoperative scores (p<0,00001). The use of HA skin substitute in adults for treatment of HS or K provided the desired clinical healing in the 6 months' follow-up periods. At the same time, HA application as an alternative to other treatment modalities led to a durable skin coverage in full thickness tissue loss in adult patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".