MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010607118 · doi:10.1093/jbcr/iraa024.265

645 Topical Application of a Novel Powdered Scaffold for Rapid Treatment of Skin Injuries

2020· article· en· W3010607118 on OpenAlexaff
Reza B. Jalili, Myriam Verly, Breshell Russ, Ruhangiz T. Kilani, Aziz Ghahary

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWound healingSurgeryBurn woundScaffoldBiomedical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction In large skin injuries, lack of matrix deposition impedes timely healing process. The longer a wound remains open, the greater is the risk of infection, non-healing, and other complications. It is therefore crucial to find effective means to promote rapid closure of skin defects. Our group has previously developed a liquid in situ-forming nutritional scaffold, known as MeshFill (MF). MF has been previously proven to be very effective in accelerating the wound repair process, notably that of complex wounds. However, MF is limited in its application to deep and tunnelling wounds, and requires reconstitution with a solvent as well as maintenance at cold temperature until application. To address these limitations, our group has developed a powdered form of MF for rapid topical application on superficial skin injuries such as dehisced surgical wounds and burn injuries. Methods Our goal was to investigate whether a powdered form of MF could be directly applied onto the wounds to accelerate healing. Ideally, powdered MF would absorb the moisture within the wound environment and reconstitute into the gel form in situ. We examined the efficacy of powder MF (PMF) compared to reconstituted gel MF (GMF) and to a standard dressing protocol. To do so, splinted full thickness wounds were generated on the back of mice and treated with either PMF or GMF or were bandaged with no treatment (NT). The healing process was monitored until wounds were fully closed. Clinical wound measurements and histological assessments were performed to compare different treatment regimens. Results Application of both PMF and GMF accelerated wound epithelialization at days 7 and 14, compared to NT, and had faster wound closure times. On average, the PMF treatments healed 17% faster than the NT control, and the GMF treatments healed 21% faster than the NT control. No significant difference between PMF and GMF was found for any outcomes. Additionally, our results suggest that epidermis formation was more effective in P and MF conditions compared to NT. Conclusions These findings suggest that topical application of a powdered form of MeshFill is as effective as standard reconstituted MeshFill gel in accelerating the healing process of skin injuries. Applicability of Research to Practice Topical application of a powdered scaffold may be a very convenient and practical method for rapid treatment of large superficial wounds such as dehisced surgical wounds, burn injuries, and filling gaps in meshed skin grafts.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicWound Healing and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207