MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111366561 · doi:10.1097/sap.0b013e31821b6d08

A Controlled Clinical Trial With Pirfenidone in the Treatment of Pathological Skin Scarring Caused by Burns in Pediatric Patients

2011· article· en· W2111366561 on OpenAlex
Juan Armendáriz‐Borunda, Iván Lyra-González, David Medina-Preciado, Ignacio Ferreira González, Daniel Martinez-Fong, Rodolfo Ariel Miranda, Rogelio Magaña-Castro, Pedro Peña-Santoyo, Sergio García-Rocha, Carlos Alfredo Bautista, Jesus Flores-Montana, Jorge Floresvillar-Mosqueda, Oscar Armendariz-Vazquez, Martha Silvia Lucano-Landeros, Mónica Vázquez-Del Mercado, María Guadalupe Sánchez‐Parada

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Plastic Surgery · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePirfenidonePathologicalDermatologySurgeryPathologyInternal medicineLungIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.175 · 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