The comparison of two methods of treatment evaluating complications and deficiency of functions of hands after deep partial skin thickness hand burns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Hands actively participate in daily activities of a human; therefore, hands are the most vulnerable parts of the human body. People injure hands so often because namely hands are in the closest position to the dangerous equipment. According to the data of various authors, the injuries of hands and fingers make even 30-75% of all industrial traumas, and burns of hands account for about 6% of all traumas of hands. The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of active surgical treatment method with conservative treatment method, applied for the treatment of deep dermal partial skin thickness burns of the hands, wrists, and forearms of distal third. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 49 patients with burned hands participated in the perspective study of random sample (totally 79 hands). All these patients were treated in the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Hospital of Kaunas University of Medicine, during the period of 2001-2005. The patients were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: Applying conservative method of treatment of deep partial skin thickness burns, the frequency of infectious complications was increased. In order to evaluate the state of scar, we applied the scale of Vancouver and analyzed the pigmentation of a scar, its height, flexibility, and color. After statistical analysis had been performed, we determined that more changes of skin were seen in the group, which received active surgical treatment (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significantly fewer complications were in the group of active surgical treatment in the early (fewer infectious complications, smaller area of unnaturalized autograft) and in the late (scars were less rough, with less changes of pigmentation) postoperative periods.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".