RETRACTED: Comparison of therapeutic effects between artificial dermis combined with autologous split‐thickness skin grafting and autologous intermediate‐thickness skin grafting alone in severely burned patients: A prospective randomised study
Post-publication record
OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the therapeutic effects of artificial dermis combined with autologous split-thickness skin grafting (STSG) compared with autologous intermediate-thickness skin grafting (ITSG) alone in severely burned patients. Fifty-six severely burned patients admitted to our hospital from December 2017 to January 2019 were enrolled and evenly grouped according to the random number table method [AD-STSG group: 28 patients, receiving the treatment of artificial dermis (AD) combined with autologous STSG; ITSG group: 28 patients, receiving autologous ITSG treatment alone]. The healing time and Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) score of the donor area and graft area, survival rate and infection status of the autologous skin, psychological status (determined by Self-rating Anxiety Scale and Self-rating Depression Scale), and the activity of functional parts of all enrolled patients were included in the evaluation. General items of patients in AD-STSG group and ITSG group, including age, sex, and degree of burn, were all comparable. A significantly shortened healing time of donor skin in AD-STSG group was observed when compared with ITSG group (P < .05) while the recipient skin healed in the same tendency between the two groups. In addition, 21 days after the operation, AD-STSG group presented with significantly higher survival rate of graft skin than ITSG group (P < .05) while same infection status was observed in the two groups. Significantly lower VSS scores were found in AD-STSG group than that in ITSG group 3-, 6- and 10-months after operation (P < .05). Statistical difference regarding psychological status of patients from two groups was unobservable before operation while significantly lower Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS) scores were found in AD-STSG group than that in ITSG group 3-, 6- and 10-months after operation (P < .05). Also, AD-STSG group presented improved mobility of functional part than that in ITSG group 10-months after operation without statistical difference (P = .051). Artificial dermis combined with autologous split-thickness skin grafting showed better therapeutic outcomes for the treatment of severely burned patients than autologous intermediate-thickness skin grafting in terms of graft healing time, scar formation, psychological recovery, and perhaps in functional reconstruction.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".