MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Application of Burnshield hydrogel for emergency care patients with burn wounds

2020· article· en· W3035800131 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
В. С. Борисов, A. V. Sachkov, M. Kaplunova, Anna Pavlov, M. E. Makarova, V. Yu. Abramov, A. V. Svischev

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical alphabet · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntisepticMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article presents the clinical results of the first use of the hydrogel Burnshield and the dressings Burnshield made of polyurethane in the treatment of burn wounds of the I–II degrees at the first medical care. The aim of the work was to study the effectiveness of the use of the Burnshield hydrogel and dressings with this hydrogel in burn patients at the first aid stage. We had an analysis analgesic and cooling effect of the Burnshield hydrogel, its effect on the healing rate of burn wounds, the antiseptic effectiveness and its influence on the formation of scar tissue (according to the Vancouver scale). We saw a good result and recommend using hydrogel in first aid due to the pronounced analgesic, cooling effect. Hydrogel spray is convenient to use in a large number of patients, does not require special skills, is used with a friend or for yourself.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical alphabetSame topicWound Healing and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207