Suprathel<sup>®</sup>causes less bleeding and scarring than Mepilex<sup>®</sup>Transfer in the treatment of donor sites of split-thickness skin grafts
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Split-thickness skin grafts are routine in the treatment of deep dermal burns and various other wounds. Healing of the donor site of the graft has an impact on the total recovery of the patient. We conducted a prospective clinical study at Tampere University Hospital to compare the effect of two adhesive wound dressings, Suprathel(®) and Mepilex(®) Transfer. The donor sites of 22 split-thickness skin grafts were studied, each of which was covered with Suprathel(®) and Mepilex(®) Transfer dressings side by side. Significantly less pain and bleeding was associated with Suprathel(®) treatment compared with Mepilex(®) Transfer (p < 0.05). Suprathel(®) produced a better scar at the three months' follow-up as measured using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). The results show that Suprathel(®) is a better dressing for the donor sites than Mepilex(®) Transfer.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it