Prospective Randomized Comparison of Scar Appearances between Cograft of Acellular Dermal Matrix with Autologous Split-Thickness Skin and Autologous Split-Thickness Skin Graft Alone for Full-Thickness Skin Defects of the Extremities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of cografting of acellular dermal matrix with autologous split-thickness skin and autologous split-thickness skin graft alone for full-thickness skin defects on the extremities. METHODS: In this prospective randomized study, 19 consecutive patients with full-thickness skin defects on the extremities following trauma underwent grafting using either cograft of acellular dermal matrix with autologous split-thickness skin graft (nine patients, group A) or autologous split-thickness skin graft alone (10 patients, group B) from June of 2011 to December of 2012. The postoperative evaluations included observation of complications (including graft necrosis, graft detachment, or seroma formation) and Vancouver Scar Scale score. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found regarding complications, including graft necrosis, graft detachment, or seroma formation. At week 8, significantly lower Vancouver Scar Scale scores for vascularity, pliability, height, and total score were found in group A compared with group B. At week 12, lower scores for pliability and height and total scores were identified in group A compared with group B. CONCLUSIONS: For cases with traumatic full-thickness skin defects on the extremities, a statistically significant better result was achieved with cograft of acellular dermal matrix with autologous split-thickness skin graft than with autologous split-thickness skin graft alone in terms of Vancouver Scar Scale score. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".