Autologous Cultured Skin Substitutes Reduce Requirements for Split-thickness Skin Autograft in Treatment of Excised, Full-Thickness Burns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid and effective closure of full-thickness burn wounds remains a limiting factor in burns of greater than 50% of the total body surface area (TBSA). Hypothetically, cultured skin substitutes (CSS) consisting of autologous cultured keratinocytes and fibroblasts attached to collagen-based sponges may reduce requirements for donor skin, numbers of grafting procedures, and time of intensive care during hospitalization. To test this hypothesis, CSS were prepared from split-thickness skin biopsies collected after enrollment of 54 burn patients by Informed Consent into a study protocol approved by the local Institutional Review Board. CSS and split-thickness skin autograft (AG) were applied in a matched-pair design with each patient serving as their own control. Data collection consisted of photographs, area measurements of donor skin and healed wounds after grafting (n=54), and qualitative outcome by the Vancouver Scale for burn scar (n=47). Data are expressed below as: A) % area closed at post-operative day (POD) 14, B) % TBSA closed at POD 28, C) ratio of closed to donor areas at POD 28, D) correlation of % TBSA closed with CSS and % TBSA FT burn, and E) ordinal scoring by the Vancouver Scale after one year.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".