Application of transitional care on prevention of scar hyperplasia after burn
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the application effects of transitional care on the prevention of scar hyperplasia after burn. Methods A total of 110 burn patients, who were treated in our hospital from February 2015 to February 2016, were divided into two groups according to the order of admission, 55 cases respectively. Patients in the control group were given regular discharge guidance and follow-up, while patients in the experimental group were given additional transitional care. The treatment compliance and the score of Vancouver Scale were compared between the two groups at six months after discharge. Results At six months post discharge, the proportions of patients who were prescribed medication, adhered to stress treatment, rehabilitation exercise, and on-time referral in the experimental group were 80.39%, 74.51%, 76.47% and 84.31% respectively, all of which were significantly higher than those in the control group (χ2=9.607, 7.985, 10.471, 11.411, P<0.05) . At six months after discharge, the Vancouver scar scores were (6.03±1.98) in the experimental group and (7.56±2.03) in the control group, with statistically significant differences between the two groups (t=-3.815, P<0.05) . Conclusions Transitional care can improve the treatment compliance of burn patients and reduce the degree of scar hyperplasia. Key words: Burn's; Cicatrix; Transitional care; Treatment compliance
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) | 0.000 | 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".