Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mucosal epithelial cells have various advantages compared with epidermal cells, such as their high proliferation ability and long biologic activity. The objective of this study was to assess the clinical results after sprayed application of cultured mucosal epithelial autograft (CMEA) suspensions onto deep dermal burn wounds. Ten patients with deep dermal burns were included in a prospective study. The average total-body-surface-area burn was 17.7% (8%-45%). The average Abbreviated Burn Severity Index was 6.3 points (4-9 points). The application of sprayed CMEA suspension was performed onto an average body surface area of 2.05% (0.5%-5%; median, 2%). Eight patients were recruited for clinical follow-up after an average of 10 months (3-18 months). The average Vancouver Scar Scale score at follow-up was 1.5 points (range, 0-5 points). The average period of epithelialization in wound surface was 12.5 days. Our data show that enzymatic and careful surgical debridement and consecutive application of CMEA suspensions using a spray technique result in excellent cosmetic outcomes compared with any other methods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 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".