An open-label, prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter, phase 1b study of StrataGraft skin tissue versus autografting in patients with deep partial-thickness thermal burns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This open-label, controlled, randomized study assessed the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of StrataGraft tissue compared to autograft in the treatment of deep partial-thickness (DPT) burns. METHODS: cryopreserved tissue. On each subject, two comparable areas of DPT burn were randomized to receive StrataGraft tissue or autograft. Coprimary end points were the percent area of the StrataGraft tissue treatment site undergoing salvage autografting by Day 28 and wound closure of treatment sites by 3 months. RESULTS: By Day 28, no StrataGraft tissue treatment sites underwent autografting. By 3 months, 93% and 100% of the StrataGraft tissue and autograft treatment sites achieved complete wound closure, respectively. No significant differences in observer total and overall opinion POSAS scores between StrataGraft tissue and autograft treatment sites were observed at any timepoint. The most common adverse event was pruritus (17%). CONCLUSIONS: StrataGraft tissue treatment of DPT thermal burns reduced the need for autograft, resulted in wound closure and treatment-site cosmesis comparable to that of autograft, and was well tolerated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".