Effects of Local Use of Insulin on Wound Healing in Non-diabetic Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have shown the positive effects of local insulin therapy in the formation of new vessels and fibrosis in acute and chronic diabetic wounds without major adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of local insulin use on wound healing in non-diabetic patients. METHODS: A randomized, split-plot, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted. Ten non-diabetic patients with full-thickness acute wounds were recruited (5 due to trauma, 3 to burns, and 2 to pressure). All wounds received standard bedside treatment. Each wound was divided into 2 zones. One side received a standard care plus insulin, while the other received standard care plus injection of saline solution. A biopsy specimen was taken from both sites on days 0 and 14. The amount of blood vessel growth and the percentage of fibrosis were evaluated. RESULTS: < .04). The percentage of fibrosis (insulin 34.7 [28.02] vs saline 27.8 [29.9]) showed no significant difference. No adverse events related to the study occurred. The clinical implications of this study are considerable in terms of the formation of blood vessels but not fibrosis. CONCLUSION: We suggest that local insulin administration is a safe therapeutic option for angiogenesis in wounds of non-diabetic patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".