Scar Quality and Hand Function after Moist Exposed Burn Ointment and Skin Graft Treatment in Full Thickness Hand Burn
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the scar formation and hand function between moist exposed burn ointment (MEBO) treatment and conventional skin graft in full thickness hand burns. Method: Prospective comparative study was done between MEBO treatment group and conventional skin graft group. Full thickness burn wound scars on dorsal hand were compared. Scars were assessed with the Vancouver scar scale and other objective measurement tools such as pigmentation, erythema, pliability, transepideramal water loss, thickness and perfusion. Hand function was evaluated by the Jebsen hand function test and Michigan Hand Function Questionnaire. Results: Vancouver Scar scale showed significantly better scores in the MEBO group than in the conventional skin graft group. Scar thickness and transepidermal water loss were greater in the MEBO treatment group whereas pigmentation value was greater in the conventional skin graft group. There was no significant difference in the hand function between the two groups. Conclusion: MEBO application could be an alternative treatment to conventional skin graft treatment in full thickness hand burn wounds. In the future, more studies are yet to come how MEBO treatment may affect the skin condition of the burn injuries. (J Korean Acad Rehab Med 2007; 31: 582-589)
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".