MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900020249 · doi:10.12968/jowc.2018.27.11.744

Evaluation of fluorescence biomodulation in the real-life management of chronic wounds: the EUREKA trial

2018· article· en· W2900020249 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wound Care · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLaser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine
Canadian institutionsKlox Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetic footChronic woundWound careInterim analysisWound healingObservational studyVenous leg ulcerQuality of life (healthcare)Varicose UlcerRegimenSurgeryClinical trialRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Fluorescence biomodulation (FB), a form of photobiomodulation (PBM) that is also known as low energy level light (LELL), has become an increasingly used clinical tool to induce wound healing in wounds that remain recalcitrant to treatment. In a real-life clinical setting, the aim of the EUREKA (EvalUation of Real-lifE use of Klox biophotonic system in chronic wound mAnagement) study was to confirm the efficacy and safety of LumiHeal, a system based on FB, in the treatment of chronic wounds such as venous leg ulcers (VLUs), diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) and pressure ulcers (PUs). The effects of this FB system on the modulation of wound healing in chronic ulcers through FB induction were previously examined in an interim analysis of this study. METHOD: A multicenter, prospective, observational, uncontrolled trial in 12 clinical sites in Italy. The wound was cleansed with saline and a 2mm thick layer of a chromophore gel was applied to the affected area in a biweekly regimen. The area was then illuminated with the LED activator for five minutes at a distance of 5cm. Treatment was used in combination with standard of care specific to each type of chronic wound (VLU, DFU, PU). Wound area evaluation was assessed using the Silhouette Imaging System and quality of life (QoL) with the Cardiff Wound Impact Schedule (CWIS). A seven-point evaluation of the clinicans' view was also examined. RESULTS: We enrolled 100 subjects, with the final analysis including 99 patients/ulcers consisting of 52 VLUs, 32 DFUs and 15 PUs. Total wound closure at the end of the study was achieved in 47 patients by aetiology: 26 VLUs (50% of VLUs); 16 DFUs (50% of DFUs); and five PUs (33.3% of PUs). The mean wound area regression at last study assessment was significant for VLUs (41.0%; p<0.001) and DFUs (52.4%; p<0.001). After four weeks of treatment, it was possible to significantly predict if the ulcer would respond (defined as a decrease of wound size) to the study treatment. Adherence was high (95.2%) and no related serious adverse events were reported during the study. QoL significantly improved, with an increase of 15.4% of the total score, using the CWIS (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The study confirmed a positive efficacy profile of the FB system in inducing the wound healing process in three different types of hard-to-heal chronic wounds. The treatment was shown to be safe and well tolerated by the patients, with a significant improvement in patient QoL. This approach offers an effective modality for the treatment of hard-to-heal chronic ulcers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it