Clinical Performance of Hydrogel-based Dressing in Facial Burn Wounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Preserving both esthetic and functional outcome remains challenging in facial burn injuries. The major issue is the initial treatment of injury. In this study, we focused on patients with partial-thickness facial burns admitted to the burn unit of Tri-Service General Hospital, Taipei, from November 2016 to November 2018. In 21 included patients, customized mask-style, transparent hydrogel-based dressing was applied to the burns. The mean age of included patients was 37.4 years. The mean area of burn injury was 11.9% of total body surface area, and the mean area of second-degree facial burns was 162.3 cm2. Full reepithelialization took, on average, 10.86 days. Scarring was acceptable in terms of texture and color, and no hypertrophic or keloidal scarring was noted. The mean Vancouver Scar Scale score was 2.07. Use of the hydrogel-based dressing masks seems to be a promising means of reducing pain, providing uninterrupted wound healing, facilitating observation, and positively affecting scarring in patients with second-degree facial burns.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".