The clinical study of the relationship between the defect of different thickness dermal tissues and the proliferative scar formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the relationship between the defect of different thickness dermal tissues and the scar formation after burn injury. Methods The involved 32 donor sites of burn patients were divided into two groups: split thickness skin (Group A) and intermediate split thickness skin (Group B) from donor site. Meanwhile, according to condition whether autograft was necessary, Group A was divided into the following sub-groups respectively: group A1 (without autograft) and group A2 (split thickness autograft) and Group B into group B1 (without autograft), group B2 (split thickness autograft) and group B3 (intermediate split thickness autograft). The skin grafts either from donor site or autograft were collected for measurement of the dermal thickness by computer. The extent of the hypertrophic scars in donor site was also evaluated by Vancouver scoring system six months postoperatively. Results The dermal defect was 0.146-0.163 mm in Group A but 0.456-0.656 mm in Group B. The value of Vancouver scores became higher with increase of dermal defect but reduced when the lost dermis was regrafted to the wound. Conclusions It is proportional between dermal defect and scar formation. The scar proliferation would relieve if the dermis is regrafted to the wound.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".