MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of Tissue-Engineered Skin (Human Skin Substitute) and Secondary Intention Healing in the Treatment of Full Thickness Wounds after Mohs Micrographic or Excisional Surgery

2002· article· en· W2119164839 on OpenAlex

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

VenueDermatologic Surgery · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryMohs surgeryWound healingErythemaHematomaProspective cohort studyVisual analogue scaleWound careDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Human Skin Substitute (Apligraf, Organogenesis, Inc., Canton, MA) is a bi-layered tissue-engineered living biological dressing developed from neonatal foreskin. It consists of a bovine collagen matrix containing human fibroblasts with an overlying sheet of stratified human epithelium containing living human keratinocytes. Human Skin Substitute (HSS) appears to be immunologically inert, and has shown usefulness in the treatment of chronic and acute wounds. OBJECTIVE: Primary objectives were to evaluate the safety and efficacy of HSS in the treatment of full-thickness wounds in a prospective case series. Secondary objectives were to determine the rate of complete wound reepithelialization, incidence of complete wound healing, pain at wound site, overall cosmetic outcome, and patient satisfaction. METHODS: Fourteen patients were enrolled in the study, of which 12 were evaluable. HSS was applied in a blinded fashion to 6 of the patients immediately following Mohs or excisional surgery for skin cancer. The remaining 6 patients were allowed to heal by secondary intention. Both groups were evaluated at weekly appointments until complete reepithelialization occurred. During each evaluation, wound quality was assessed through the Vancouver Burn Scar Assessment Scale by the investigator and an independent blinded dermatologist. The investigator, blinded observer, and patient further evaluated the cosmetic outcome of the wound through the use of a Visual Analog Scale over a 6-month period. RESULTS: HSS patients and secondary intention patients were equivalent in comorbid factors such as pain, erythema, edema, exudate, infection, or hematoma between the groups. The incidence of complete wound healing at 6 months was 100% for both groups. Both groups also appeared to heal at similar rates, as defined by the complete reepithelialization of the wound. HSS patients ultimately resulted in more pliable and less vascular wounds as defined by the Vancouver Burn Scar Assessment Scale. Patient satisfaction with cosmetic outcome in both groups was positive at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: HSS appears to be a safe, well-tolerated biological dressing with equivalent comorbid factors to secondary intention healing. HSS, however, seems to produce a more pliable and less vascular scar than those developed through healing by secondary intention. HSS also appears to produce more satisfactory cosmetic results when compared to secondary intention 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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.236 · 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