Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Silicone sheet is commonly used for scar management but hard to apply to irregular surfaces or mobile areas, and difficult to conceal. On the contrary, silicone gel is easy to apply and nearly unnoticeable. Therefore, we conducted this study to compare their effectiveness. METHODS: Patients undergoing horizontal cesarean section were included. Surgical wounds were divided into 2 halves. Patients randomly applied silicone sheets and silicone gel on either side of their wounds for 3 months. The wounds were assessed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. We used the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) for an objective evaluation and the visual analog scale (VAS) for a subjective evaluation. RESULTS: There was no statistical significance between the silicone sheet and silicone gel groups with respect to VSS score. The silicone sheet group showed a statistically significant higher VAS score for itch at 1 month follow-up (1.18 ± 2.04 vs 0.35 ± 0.85, P = .01). However, the difference was less than 1 on a scale of 10, so it might not be clinically meaningful. CONCLUSION: Silicone sheet group showed statistically significant worse VAS score in terms of itch. However, the difference was too small to be clinically meaningful.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".