A phase 3, open-label, controlled, randomized, multicenter trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of StrataGraft® construct in patients with deep partial-thickness thermal burns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This phase 3 study evaluated StrataGraft construct as a donor-site sparing alternative to autograft in patients with deep partial-thickness (DPT) burns. METHODS: total) of comparable depth after excision were randomized to either cryopreserved StrataGraft or autograft. Coprimary endpoints were: the difference in percent area of StrataGraft treatment site and autograft treatment site autografted at Month 3 (M3), and the proportion of patients achieving durable wound closure of the StrataGraft site without autograft at M3. Safety assessments were performed in all patients. Efficacy and safety follow-up continued to 1 year. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients were enrolled. By M3, there was a 96% reduction in mean percent area of StrataGraft treatment sites that required autografting, compared with autograft treatment sites (4.3% vs 102.1%, respectively; P<.0001). StrataGraft treatment resulted in durable wound closure at M3 without autografting in 92% (95% CI: 85.6, 98.8; n/n 59/64) of patients for whom data were available. The most common StrataGraft-related adverse event was pruritus (15%). CONCLUSIONS: Both coprimary endpoints were achieved. StrataGraft may offer a new treatment for DPT burns to reduce the need for autografting. CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER: NCT03005106.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".