Role of silicone derivative plus onion extract gel in presternal hypertrophic scar protection: a prospective randomized, double blinded, controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Use of silicone derivative and onion extract had been reported in the prevention of hypertrophic scarring. Our experience showed the preventive use of silicone derivative plus onion extract gel on hypertrophic scars after median sternotomy. In a randomized, double blinded, placebo-controlled study, 60 patients after median sternotomy incisions were separated into two groups. All patients were treated either with silicone derivative plus onion extract gel (Cybele(®) scagel) or placebo gel twice daily for a total treatment period of 12 weeks. During each visit, pain and itching scores were graded by the patients and scar characteristics were observed by surgeons using the Vancouver scar scale. Pain and itch score values from patients' who applied silicone derivative plus onion extract gel was less than another group (P < 0·05). Pigmentation was significantly different between two groups (P < 0·05) and the reduction of scores on vascularity, pliability, height in treated group was not superior to the untreated group. No adverse events were reported by any of the patients. A silicone derivative plus onion extract gel is safe and effective for the preventing the hypertrophic scarring after median sternotomy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".