Comparison of Treatment Effect of the Dried Bovine Amniotic Membrane and the Cultured Allogenic Keratinocytes in the Partial Thickness Burn Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: In the partial thickness burn management, despite of several advantages, the use of human amniotic membrane has been limited. The authors applied dried bovine amniotic membrane(DBAM) to overcome disadvantages of amniotic membrane for partial thickness burn and to compare the effectiveness of cultured allogenic keratinocytes(CAK) that have been recently used for the management of burn. Methods: From August 2007 to May 2008, 16 patients with partial thickness burn were assigned to this study. The ages ranged from 12 to 59, with the average of 38. Either DBAM or CAK were applied, and the secondary dressing was removed on the following day. To compare treatment effect, time for epithelization, Vancouver scar scale and chromameteric results were evaluated. Results: The time for epithelization was 10.1 days and 9.1 days in DBAM and CAK, respectively, which are shorter than the previous 2-3 weeks. At the follow up Vancouver scar scale was 2.8 in DBAM and 3.0 points in CAK, both of which showed good results. The results of chromameter showed that the L, a, and b values of the area applied DBAM were 60.1, 13.6, and 13.3, respectively, and the values of the area applied CAK were 60.1, 12.4, and 12.4, respectively. It was found that the skin color of the healed area after burn was darker, the redness was higher, and the yellowness was lower. After dressing, no significant side effects were observed, and in the cases of applying CAK, it was inconvenient as the moving area had to be fixed. Conclusion: As CAK, DBAM has several advantages such as the shortening of the epithelization period, reduction of scar and pigmentation, and convenient application, etc., it is an effective method for the partial thickness burn management.
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".