MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

035
Evaluation of BiLayered Cell Therapy for Full Thickness Excision Wounds: A MultiCenter, Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial

2008· article· en· W2059851255 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vincent Falanga

Bibliographic record

VenueWound Repair and Regeneration · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVascularitySurgeryMohs surgeryClinical endpointDiabetic footRandomized controlled trialWound healingWound careDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Management of surgical defects following excisional and Mohs micrographic surgery for malignant skin lesions consists of autografting, skin flaps, primary closure, and healing by secondary intention. A fully differentiated bilayered cell-based therapy (BLCT/Apligraf), expresses multiple growth factors, provides a biologically active matrix, and appears to be immunologically inert. BLCT is FDA approved for venous leg ulcers and diabetic foot ulcers. BLCT is effective in hard-to-heal venous ulcers and, in diabetic foot ulcers, it is significantly associated with less amputations and osteomyelitis. A previous open-label trial showed BLCT to be safe and effective in surgical excision wounds. However, we have been interested in rigorously identifying differences in chronic compared to acute wounds when using BLCT or other skin substitutes. In this report of a multicenter randomized study, we enrolled and treated 181 patients eligible for secondary intention healing after Mohs or excisional surgery for skin cancer, with 172 completing the study. Face wounds were excluded. In total, 84 patients were treated with BLCT and 88 with dressings alone. The primary efficacy endpoint was the quality of the healed wound using the Vancouver Burn Scar Assessment Scale (VBSAS). Pigmentation, vascularity, pliability, and scar heights were assessed by the investigator and an independent observer as 0 (no scar) to 15 (worst scar). Scores of ≤ 4 were assigned to 57 (65%) of BLCT-treated patients by both the investigator and observer, and to 60 (65%) and 54 (58%) of control patients according to the investigator and observer, respectively. There was no difference in healing time, and no severe adverse events or rapid cancer recurrence were observed in either group. In this randomized controlled trial of full thickness excision wounds after skin cancer removal, BLCT/Apligraf was safe and well tolerated.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWound Repair and RegenerationSame topicWound Healing and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207