Double-Blind, Randomized, Pilot Study Assessing the Resolution of Postburn Pruritus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate whether Provase®, a nonprescription moisturizer with a blend of protease enzymes, would reduce postburn itching in adult burn survivors relative to a control moisturizer. This was a prospective, single-center, double-blinded, pilot study where 23 burn survivors were randomized to either the treatment group, who applied Provase, or the control group, who applied the base moisturizer used in Provase every 8 hours for 4 weeks. Twelve were randomized to the treatment and 11 to the control groups with 9 participants in each group completing the study. There was no difference between groups with respect to gender, ethnicity, causative factor, TBSA burned, or time postinjury. Participant's pruritus and scar were reevaluated on a weekly basis for 4 consecutive weeks. Relative to baseline, there was a significant reduction of itch duration in minutes at weeks 3 and 4, the number of days per week that itch was experienced at weeks 2, 3, and 4, and the number of itch episodes per day at week 2 for the treatment group. The itch TBSA reduced significantly relative to baseline for the treatment group at week 1, 2, and 3. The affective itch characteristics were significantly reduced for the treatment group for bothersome at weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4; for annoying at week 4; and for unbearable at weeks 2, 3, and 4. Although this was a pilot study and not powered for statistical differences, there were statistically significant differences for itch duration, weekly frequency, itch episodes per day, itch TBSA, and reported affective burden of itch after treatment. Further investigation is recommended with a larger sample size treated for a longer period of time where participants are stratified based on acute or chronic itch.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".