MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Effect of Silicone Gel Sheets on Perfusion of Hypertrophic Burn Scars

2002· article· en· W2005444635 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Rehabilitation · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypertrophic scarMedicineSiliconePerfusionScarsHypertrophic scarsBlood flowSalineSurgeryAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.734
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.276 · 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