COMPARISON OF THE CLINICAL EFFECT OF COMPLEX TRANSPLANTATION WITH HETERGENEOUS ACEL-LULAR DERMAL MATRIX (ADM) AND HETEROCATAL ADM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the short term clinical effects of complex transplantation among the acellular dermal matrix(ADM) of heterogenic or heterocatal and autogenic split on the burnt wound as to find out a permanent substitution for the treatment on full skin thickness defect without scar. Methods Two kinds of ADM were used on the 18 patients with full thickness burn wound through complex transplantation with autogenic splits. The patients with medial thickness autograft was used as control group. Survival rate was obtained 2 weeks after operation; contraction rate and the scores of Vancouver burn scale were obtained 8 weeks after operation. Results No significant difference was observed in survival rate among the three groups 2 weeks after operation( P 0.05); no significant difference was observed in contraction rate of autografts and scores of Vancouver burn scale among the three groups 8 weeks after operation( P 0.05). Conclusion ADM of heterogenic and ADM of heterocatal have similar effect on the reconstruction of skin, so the piglet ADM made in this way could be used as a substitution.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".