MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997536866 · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000006413

A Preliminary Report of the Biochemical and Clinical Effects of 1,4-Diaminobutane on Prevention of Human Hypertrophic Scars

2019· article· en· W2997536866 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth N. Dolynchuk, Edward E. Tredget

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineScarsHypertrophic scarHypertrophic scarsLysineDermatologyProcollagen peptidaseAmino acidSurgeryInternal medicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective evidence for the role of inhibition of collagen cross-linking in human scar using a nontoxic topical inhibitor, 1,4-diaminobutane (1,4 DAB), in patients with scars at risk for hypertrophic scar formation is presented. The authors used a concentration of 1,4 DAB of 0.8% (weight/volume) in a cream base similar to Glaxal Base. Application was once per day at night. The control was treated with cream base alone. In treatment phase studies at 2 months, tissue biopsies were performed and used to determine a therapeutic effect biochemically in paired scars harvested chosen with typical hypertrophic scars at two major treatment centers. Tissue transglutaminase activity revealed a significant reduction of the ε-(γ-glutamyl)lysine cross-links in the treated scars: 7.96 ± 1.51 pmol/µmol amino acid versus 14.78 ± 3.52 pmol/µmol amino acid. A subset of paired scars (n = 15) was also analyzed for soluble procollagen type III amino propeptide. The effect was a significant increase in procollagen type III amino propeptide in the scars treated with 1,4 DAB compared with sham-treated scars: 47.75 ± 4.6 µg/mg wet weight versus 39.08 ± 6.02 µg/mg wet weight, respectively. Levels of tissue 1,4 DAB was found to be twice as high in the presence of the active cream versus in the tissue of the control group. In subsequent prophylaxis studies, the authors treated 44 breast reduction patients prospectively with active cream to one or the other side in a double-blind randomized fashion. Hardness (in grams) measured using a Rex Durometer at 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively along with photographs were analyzed. The mean value ± SD of 24.98 ± 1.2 g on the active side versus 31.76 ± 1.1 g on the sham side was significantly different (p < 0.05). The patient scale scores of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale were also requested by survey in a responding 27-patient subgroup at a minimum 1 year postoperatively, and the differences between the two sides were found to be statistically significant, where the mean on the active side was 14.07 ± 1.34 and the mean on the sham side was 21.41 ± 1 (p < 0.05). The results are evidence to support the use of this agent in prevention of hypertrophic scars. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Therapeutic, II.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicDermatologic Treatments and ResearchFrench-language works237,207