A Controlled Clinical Trial With Pirfenidone in the Treatment of Pathological Skin Scarring Caused by Burns in Pediatric Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pathologic skin scarring reversion remains a big challenge for surgeons, as disfiguring scars have a dramatic influence on patient's quality of life. METHODS: A controlled clinical trial was conducted to evaluate 8% pirfenidone (PFD) gel administered topically 3 times a day during 6 months to 33 pediatric patients with hypertrophic scars caused by burns. A total of 30 patients with hypertrophic scars with identical Vancouver Scar Scale values were treated with pressure therapy and included as controls. Improvements were evaluated by Vancouver Scar Scale and a Visual Analog Scale. Safety parameters were determined by the presence of adverse events and monitoring laboratory and hematology parameters. RESULTS: Patients treated with PFD during 6 months presented a continuous monthly statistically significant scar regression in comparison with the initial Vancouver measurement (P = <0.001). PFD group showed a higher improvement of all scar features as compared with control group treated with pressure therapy (P = <0.001). In the PFD group, 9 of 33 patients (27%) had their scores decreased in Vancouver classification by more than 55%, 22 patients (67%) had a 30% to 45% decrease, whereas 2 patients (6%) had a 30% decrease or less. Control group treated with pressure therapy showed a slight improvement in 16% of cases on an average. Patients did not show serious adverse effects or laboratory alterations throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: Topical administration of 8% PFD gel 3 times a day is more effective and safe in the treatment of hypertrophic scars caused by burns in children, as compared with standard pressure therapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".