523 Silkworm Silk as an Alternative to Two Common Epidermal Substitutes for the Treatment of Acute Superficial Burns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction During the treatment of superficial burn injuries patients are often confronted with painful dressing changes. Therefore we usually treat these wounds with materials that can stay on the wound and slowly peel off during re-epithelialization. Since 2013 we started using pure silk as cost efficient alternative for the treatment of these wounds. Therefore we wanted to compare it directly with the other dressings. Methods In a prospective intra-individual design we evaluated the wound healing of 50 patients with superficial burn injuries. Hereof 30 patients received both silk and Nylon mesh with collagen and 20 further patients received silk and a synthetic epidermal substitute for the treatment of their burn injuries. Following a standardized case report form, we monitored pain, active bleeding, exudation, dressing change and inflammation. Furthermore we evaluated scar quality objectively with the Cutometer, Mexameter and Tewameter as well as subjectively with the patient and observer scar scale (POSAS) and the Vancouver scar scale (VSS). Results During wound healing no significant differences could be found regarding wound closure, inflammation and acute bleeding. Pain levels fell fast during after dressing application and during wound healing. Long-term results in functional and aesthetic outcome were similar. High satisfaction rates were reported for all dressings, with different individual preferences. Conclusions All three dressings provided a safe and effective healing environment, with low complication rates in regard to infection and exudation. Additionally, no significant differences regarding scarring could be found with an overall pleasing aesthetic outcome. Applicability of Research to Practice Silkworm silk is now the standard of care in our clinic for superficial burns.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".