A Prospective Randomized, Controlled, Double‐Blind Trial of the Efficacy Using Centella Cream for Scar Improvement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: extract in cream, a preparation for the prevention of scar development of the split-thickness skin graft (STSG) donor site. METHODS: A prospective randomized, double-blind control study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of Centella cream in 30 patients who underwent a STSG operation. Both Centella cream and placebo were applied equally to the donor site at least 2 weeks after epithelialization was completed. A scar assessment using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) was taken at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. RESULTS: Of the original 30 patients, 23 patients completed evaluation. There were significant differences in pigmentation parameter of VSS and comparative total VSS scores between 4 and 12 weeks in Centella cream group. CONCLUSION: The effect of Centella cream on scar development of a STSG operation may be attainable in terms of better pigmentation. By means of objective measurements and longer follow-up times, Centella cream may prove to be an alternative product for hypertrophic scar amelioration.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it