Commercial Acetic Acid: A Potential Regenerative Agent for Chronic Cutaneous Wounds? A Quasi-Experimental Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The acetic acid in the form of vinegar has been used for medicinal purposes since ancient times. Acetic acid is reported to be used for medicinal uses at 1-5% concentration. The mechanism behind the regenerative potential of commercial acetic acid has not been fully explored.MATERIALS & METHODS: Twelve Iraqi patients with chronic skin ulceration were admitted and managed at a Dermatology clinic. Patients included men (7) and women (5) of diverse age groups (23-81 years). The aetiology behind the skin ulceration included; diabetic ulcer, decubitus ulcer, and others induced by trauma, bone fracture, insect bites and substance abuse. All patients were strictly treated with commercial acetic acid (at 4-6% concertation) and followed-up in time until the complete resolution of their cutaneous ulcerations.RESULTS & DISCUSSION: This study is quasi-experimental; two cases are discussed thoroughly; the first case belongs to a Caucasian male aged 26 years with schizophrenia and addiction towards psychoactive substances; he developed a refractory ulcer in left cubital fossa following an intravenous injection. The second case belongs to a middle age male patient, hypertensive otherwise healthy; he had a displaced intra-articular fracture affecting the distal end of the left radius; it was surgically treated with an internal fixation which was incriminated for the development of an ulcer over the volar aspect of left forearm overlying the internal fixation site. Local disinfection with commercial apple vinegar was very effective in restoring the skin integrity with minimal scarring.CONCLUSION: The regenerative potential of acetic acid has been marginally covered in the literature. The presented cases indicate a regenerative potential or at least an accelerant role in the process of cutaneous wound healing and repair.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".