The Effect of Silicone Gel Sheets on Perfusion of Hypertrophic Burn Scars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanism of action of topical silicone gel sheets on hypertrophic scars is not well understood and their effect on the blood flow within hypertrophic scars has not been investigated. The purpose of this study was to examine whether application of silicone gel sheets produced any acute effects on blood flow in hypertrophic burn scars. Perfusion of hypertrophic scars and adjacent normal skin was measured using a laser Doppler with and without application of silicone gel sheets. Continuous measurements were made for 5 minutes before gel application, for 30 minutes during gel application and for 5 minutes following gel removal. Surface temperature of the scar was continuously monitored. An occupational therapist, blinded to the perfusion level, rated each scar using the Vancouver Scar Scale. Eighteen scars and adjacent control sites in sixteen adult burn patients (11 male, 5 female; mean age: 42 +/- 14 years) were evaluated. The mean scar age was 5.4 +/- 3.7 months. The mean Vancouver Scar Scale was 5.5 +/- 2.4. Hypertrophic scars demonstrated higher perfusion measurements at baseline compared to control areas (58.5 +/- 19.3 flux units vs 25.0 +/- 8.4 flux units; P < 0.001). Application of silicone sheeting gel did not significantly alter perfusion in either the hypertrophic scar or normal tissue from the baseline measurements. However, application of silicone gel sheeting did significantly increase the mean baseline surface temperature of the hypertrophic scar from 29 +/- 0.8 degrees C to 30.7 +/- 0.6 degrees C (P < 0.001). The mechanism of action of silicone gel sheeting probably does not involve an acute alteration in blood flow within the scar. However, surface temperature of the scar increased significantly following gel application, raising the possibility that temperature alteration is involved in the mechanism of action.
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) | 0.001 | 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".