Novel Application of Cultured Epithelial Autografts (CEA) with Expanded Mesh Skin Grafting Over an Artificial Dermis or Dermal Wound Bed Preparation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cultured epithelial autografts (CEA) with highly expanded mesh skin grafts were used for extensive adult burns covering more than 30% of the total body surface area. A prospective study on eight patients assessed subjective and objective findings up to a 12-month follow-up. The results of wound healing for over 1:6 mesh plus CEA, gap 1:6 mesh plus CEA, and 1:3 mesh were compared at 3, 6, and 12 months using extensibility, viscoelasticity, color, and transepidermal water loss by a generalized estimating equation (GEE) or generalized linear mixed model (GLMM). No significant differences were observed among the paired treatments at any time point. At 6 and 12 months, over 1:6 mesh plus CEA achieved significantly better expert evaluation scores by the Vancouver and Manchester Scar Scales (p < 0.01). Extended skin grafting plus CEA minimizes donor resources and the quality of scars is equal or similar to that with conventional low extended mesh slit-thickness skin grafting such as 1:3 mesh. A longitudinal analysis of scars may further clarify the molecular changes of scar formation and pathogenesis.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".