The use of a polylactide‐based copolymer as a temporary skin substitute in deep dermal burns: 1‐year follow‐up results of a prospective clinical noninferiority trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep dermal burns can be covered with different kind of materials and techniques; one of them is a polylactide-based temporary skin substitute. The aim of this study was to intraindividually compare its 1-year outcome with the results obtained by use of autologous skin grafts in patients suffering from deep dermal burns. A prospective noninferiority trial was designed in order to assess skin quality and scar formation by use of subjective (Vancouver Scar Scale; Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale) and objective (noninvasive cutometry) burn scar assessment tools. All items of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, except vascularity, were found to be noninferior in the areas covered with the temporary skin substitute vs. autologous skin. Results of objective scar evaluation showed comparable viscoelastic parameters without reaching noninferiority. Overall, the outcome of deep dermal burns covered with a polylactide-based temporary skin substitute revealed satisfactory results in terms of scar formation and skin quality as compared with autologous skin. This paper supports its use in deep dermal burns, where autologous skin donor sites require either to be reserved for coverage of full-thickness skin defects in severe burns or to be saved for reduction of additional morbidity in selected patient collectives.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".