A multi-center study on the regenerative effects of erythropoietin in burn and scalding injuries: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although it was initially assumed that erythropoietin (EPO) was a hormone that only affected erythropoiesis, it has now been proposed that EPO plays an additional key role in the regulation of acute and chronic tissue damage. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a large, prospective, randomized, double-blind, multi-center study, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, and fully approved by the designated ethics committee. The trial, which is to investigate the effects of EPO in severely burned patients, is in its recruitment phase and is being carried out in 13 German burn care centers. A total of 150 patients are to be enrolled to receive study medication every other day for 21 days (EPO 150 IU/kg body weight or placebo). A follow-up of one year is planned. The primary endpoint of this study is the time until complete re-epithelialization of a defined skin graft donor site is reached. Furthermore, clinical parameters such as wound healing, scar formation (using the Vancouver scar scale), laboratory values, quality of life (SF-36), angiogenic effects, and gene- and protein-expression patterns are to be determined. The results will be carefully evaluated for gender differences. DISCUSSION: We are seeking new insights into the mechanisms of wound healing in thermally injured patients and more detailed information about the role EPO plays, specifically in these complex interactions. We additionally expect that the biomimetic effects of EPO will be useful in the treatment of acute thermal dermal injuries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT Number: 2006-002886-38, Protocol Number: 0506, ISRCT Number: http://controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN95777824/ISRCTN95777824.
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 | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.007 |
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".