Retrospective real‐world comparative effectiveness of ovine forestomach matrix and collagen/ <scp>ORC</scp> in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The retrospective pragmatic real-world data (RWD) study compared the healing outcomes of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) treated with either ovine forestomach matrix (OFM) (n = 1150) or collagen/oxidised regenerated cellulose (ORC) (n = 1072) in out-patient wound care centres. Median time to wound closure was significantly (P = .0015) faster in the OFM group (14.6 ± 0.5 weeks) relative to the collagen/ORC group (16.4 ± 0.7). A sub-group analysis was performed to understand the relative efficacy in DFUs requiring longer periods of treatment and showed that DFUs treated with OFM healed up to 5.3 weeks faster in these challenging wounds. The percentage of wounds closed at 36 weeks was significantly improved in OFM treated DFUs relative to the collagen/ORC. A Cox proportional hazards analysis showed OFM-treated wounds had a 18% greater probability of healing versus wounds managed with collagen/ORC, and the probability increased to 21% when the analysis was adjusted for multiple variables. This study represents the first large retrospective RWD analysis comparing OFM and collagen/ORC and supports the clinical efficacy of OFM in the treatment of DFUs.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".