MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023711928 · doi:10.2310/7750.2012.11149

Dynaclose Tape: A Practical Alternative to Punch Biopsy Site Closure

2013· article· en· W2023711928 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph Doumit, Rachel Vale, Nordau Kanigsberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Sutures and Adhesives
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBiopsyPunch BiopsySiliconeSurgeryClosure (psychology)Skin biopsyRadiologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A punch biopsy is a common therapeutic and diagnostic procedure that is routinely performed by dermatologists. A thin cylinder of tissue is removed with a biopsy punch, which creates a full-thickness wound. Sutures are used for primary closure as part of standard practice and are removed in follow-up 5 to 14 days later. The biopsy site heals with a small linear scar. In the past, punch biopsies were often left to heal by secondary intention, but given the extended healing time, this has fallen out of practice among dermatologists. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this case report is to introduce a new quick and cost-effective approach to accelerate secondary intention healing following punch biopsies in busy dermatology clinics. RESULTS/CONCLUSION: We present a case where Dynaclose tape (Canica Design Inc, Almonte, ON) was used as an alternative to sutures for biopsy site closure. Dynaclose tape is a strip with adhesive ends and a clear center composed of silicone elastomer. The silicone elastomer promotes wound closure by pulling the opposing margins together. The tape maintains excellent adhesion and follows the natural shape of the skin to maximize patient comfort and mobility.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and SurgerySame topicSurgical Sutures and AdhesivesFrench-language works237,207