MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091044550 · doi:10.1097/sap.0b013e31819b3d59

Hyalomatrix PA in Burn Care Practice

2009· article· en· W2091044550 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gianpiero Gravante, Roberto Sorge, A. Merone, Anna Maria Tamisani, Antonio Di Lonardo, Alessandro Scalise, Giovanna Doneddu, Davide Melandri, Giorgio Stracuzzi, Maria Giuseppina Onesti, Paolo Cerulli, Raimondo Pinn, Gaetano Esposito

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Plastic Surgery · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDermabrasionDebridement (dental)Skin graftingSurgeryBurn woundRetrospective cohort studyPopulationWound careWound healing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Results of a national retrospective survey on Hyalomatrix PA in burn patients are reported.A total of 11 burn centers were contacted.A total of 57 patients were available. Hyalomatrix PA was used on young and adult patients, mainly in deep partial thickness and full thickness burns. In most cases, Hyalomatrix PA was applied immediately after the wound cleaning (wound debridement or escharectomy for adults, dermabrasion or debridement in young patients). After 7 days, reepithelization processes were more frequent in deep partial thickness burns. One-half of the patient population underwent grafting. After 29 days, complete closure was achieved in almost all patients. The Vancouver Scar Scale showed better values for adults, while no differences were observed for burn depth or patients undergoing grafting. No adverse reactions were recorded.Hyalomatrix PA is used in young and adults, in deep partial thickness and full thickness burns, as a temporary coverage before grafting or alone for wound healing.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations58
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Plastic SurgerySame topicWound Healing and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207