Estudio prospectivo aleatorizado sobre la evolución en el empleo de suturas en la cirugía de hallux valgus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En la actualidad, se nos presenta una amplia gama de posibilidades a la hora del cierre de la piel de una herida quirúrgica, sin que existan grandes estudios en los que se demuestre una clara supremacía de un tipo respecto a otro. El objetivo de este estudio es valorar la evolución y las características de la cicatrización en la cirugía abierta del hallux valgus en función del tipo de sutura empleada, con su consiguiente impacto clínico y estético en el paciente. Para ello, se realiza un estudio prospectivo aleatorizado de una serie de 79 pacientes subdivididos en 3 grupos, en cada uno de los cuales se emplea un tipo de sutura, 25 suturados con Ethilon®, 26 con Safil Quick® y 28 con Monosyn®. Se realiza un seguimiento a los 15 días, 1 mes y 2 meses mediante fotografía y al año presencial. Para analizar los resultados se emplean las escalas VSS (Vancouver Scar Scale), SBSES (Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale) y la satisfacción del paciente. Los resultados son analizados mediante estudios descriptivos y ANOVA (ANalysis Of VAriance), mostrando que al año no existen diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los 3 tipos de sutura y que la satisfacción del paciente es buena en todos los casos.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".