Study on dermabrasion in the shock phase of children extensive deep partial thickness burns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To analyze the clinical effect of dermabrasion in the shock phase of children extensive deep partial thickness burns. Methods Eighty cases of deep burn hospitalized children were selected in department of burns and plastic surgery, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University from January 2010 to January 2015. All the burn children were divided into the dermabrasion group and the control group, according to different treatments, 40 cases each group.In the dermabrasion group, the patients received eschar grinding operation in 48 hours after injury. In the control group, the patients were treated with silver sulfadiazine. The burn wound blood flow signal of the two groups were observed by 100 MHz B-Ultrasound at shock stage. The wound healing time, the rate of changing wound dressing, the rate of skin grafting operation, scar hyperplasia were assessed by the vancouver of burn scar rating scale.In vancouver of burn scar rating scale for assessment of standard scar hyperplasia and the wound healing quality index were observed. Relevant indicators were analysised by t test and Chi-square. Results Compared with the control group, the burn wound blood flow signal of the dermabrasion group significantly enhanced. The wound healing time was shorter[(15.4±3.5) d] than the control group[(21.6±4.7) d], the difference was statistically sinificant (t=12.735, P<0.05). The switching frequency of the dermabrasion group [(5.6±2.2) times] was less than the control group [(10.5±3.8) times], the difference was statistically sinificant (t=14.435, P<0.05). The rate of changing wound dressing of the dermabrasion group (15%)was lower than the control group(35%), the difference was statistically sinificant(χ2=4.363, P<0.05). The vancouver score of the dermabrasion group [(5.0±1.6) scores] was less than the control group [(9.7±2.2) scores], the difference was statistically sinificant(t=13.235, P<0.05). Conclusion The treatment of dermabrasion at the shock stage has the advantages of shortening wound healing time and light scar. Key words: Child; Burns; Wounds and injuries; Would healing; Cicatrix; Ultrasonography
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".