HYALURONIDASE OINTMENT IN TREATMENT OF HYPERTROPHIC SCARS.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have studied efficiency of hyaluronidase ointment created on the base of microbial hyaluronidase preparation "Bilidase" in treatment of postoperative hypertrophic scars. A total number of 14 patients with postoperative hypertrophic scars on different part of face were enrolled in the study. All patients were treated with hyaluronidase ointment by help of iontophoresis for 10 days -1 procedure per day and than retreated 1 time with the same regimen at 4-week interval. Scar conditions were assessed in terms of pigmentation, vascularity, pliability, height, pain and pruritis in accordance with the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). The data of this investigation indicate that treatment of postoperative scars with hyaluronidase ointment significantly improves the function as well as a cosmetic appearance of scar tissues. Each of the investigated parameters was improved significantly after hyaluronidase treatment. Total score after 1 cycle of treatment was 5.14±0.9 vs 10±1.5 before treatment and after 2 cycles of treatment. total score was 0.85±0.9 vs 10±1.5 before treatment (p<0.001). Hyaluronidase ointment could also be recommended for preventing the scar formation in plastic surgery.
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".