Use of Hyaluronic Acid Gel Filler versus Sterile Water in the Treatment of Intractable Plantar Keratomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intractable plantar keratoma is a common concern in the podiatric medical office. Different treatment options are available, ranging from trimming and padding to surgery. We sought to investigate the use of hyaluronic acid gel injections as a possible minimally invasive alternative in the treatment of intractable plantar keratomas. METHODS: Seventeen patients with intractable plantar keratomas were randomly assigned to receive a hyaluronic acid gel injection or a sterile water injection at the site of a previously trimmed plantar lesion. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two groups in the evaluation of pain and function at 12 weeks, but both groups showed a clinically relevant improvement. No significant change was observed in plantar tissue thickness in both groups. A minor adverse reaction was seen in the hyaluronic acid group. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a hyaluronic acid gel injection at the site of a trimmed intractable plantar keratoma did not seem more effective than the use of a sterile water injection. Sterile water injections seemed safe and efficient in reducing pain associated with plantar keratomas. Further investigations should concentrate on whether these results are reproducible in a larger sample and on the most effective sequence of treatment.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".