MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963896155 · doi:10.1097/prs.0b013e318254fa21

Reepithelialization from Stem Cells of Hair Follicles of Dermal Graft of the Scalp in Acute Treatment of Third-Degree Burns

2012· article· en· W1963896155 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
G. Zakine, Maurice Mimoun, Julien Pham, Marc Chaouat

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHair Growth and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScalpMedicineDermisDermoepidermal junctionHair follicleSurgeryDermatologyAnatomyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The scalp, an excellent donor site for thin skin grafts, presents a limited surface but is rich in keratinocyte stem cells. The purpose of this study was to double scalp harvesting in one procedure and to evaluate the capacity of the dermal layer to spontaneously reepithelialize from hair follicle stem cells. METHODS: Two layers of 0.2-mm split-thickness skin graft, a dermoepidermal graft and a dermal graft, were harvested from scalp during the same procedure. Fifteen burn patients were included in this study. Healing of the scalp donor site and percentage of graft taken were evaluated. The Vancouver Scar Scale was used at 3 months and 1 year. Histologic studies were performed at day 0 and 3 months on grafts, and on the scalp at day 28. RESULTS: Nine patients were treated on the limbs with meshed dermal graft. Six were treated on the hands with unmeshed dermal graft. Graft take was good for both types of grafts. The mean time for scalp healing was 9.3 days. Histologic study confirmed that the second layer was a dermal graft with numerous annexes and that, at 3 months, the dermis had normal thickness but with rarer and smaller epidermal crests than dermal graft. The difference between the mean Vancouver Scar Scale score of dermal graft and dermoepidermal graft was not significant. CONCLUSION: The authors' study shows the efficacy of dermal graft from the scalp and good scalp healing. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.394
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicHair Growth and DisordersFrench-language works237,207