MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221129637 · doi:10.1093/jbcr/irac012.054

51 Wireless Electroceutical Dressing for the Treatment of Biofilm Infected Burn Wounds

2022· article· en· W4221129637 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kristo Nuutila, Victoria Diaz, Kristin Anselmo, Shomita Steiner, Chandan K. Sen, Anders H. Carlsson, Rodney K. Chan, Sashwati Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlanarian Biology and Electrostimulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBurn woundSurgeryWound careInfection controlRandomized controlled trialBattlefieldClinical trialWound healingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Burn injuries are common to all military conflicts. In combat, eradication and prevention of burn wound infection is complicated by high rates of soft tissue contamination and prolonged delays to definitive stateside care. Furthermore, in the battlefield setting the salvage rate for infected burned extremities is low. Therefore, a simple, easy, non-invasive and rapid method to protect the wound, while also inhibiting infection, would represent a significant advance in the treatment of combat burn wounds. The purpose of this clinical trial was to investigate the efficacy of an FDA approved disposable and easily portable, wireless electroceutical dressing (WED) in the treatment of burn wounds. The hypothesis was that a low electric field generated by the moisture-activated WED will reduce infection load, improve graft survival and take, enhance wound healing and restore skin barrier function of biofilm infected wounds. Methods A phase I, prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial was performed to evaluate the efficacy of the WED dressing as compared to the standard of care (SoC) dressing to prevent and disrupt biofilms. Subjects were screened from inpatient admissions for traumatic burns >300cm2 in size. In total 38 subjects were enrolled to the study. Subject burn wounds were divided into two parts and randomized to receive either the SoC dressing or the WED dressing. Dressings were changed on day 4, removed on day 7 and the burns were followed for 30 days. Small biopsies were collected on days 4 and 7 for histology, SEM examination of biofilm and for quantitative bacteriological analysis. In addition, non-invasive wound imaging techniques were utilized to study wound healing. Furthermore, Vancouver scar scale and patient observer scar assessment were used to evaluate quality of healing. Results The results showed that at the time of dressing removal, non-grafted burns that were treated with the WED dressing presented statistically significantly less biofilm in comparison to the SoC treated burns (p < 0.05). The results also demonstrated that the WED dressing was more efficient at eradicating biofilm than the SoC dressing. At the time of the dressing removal, biofilm score [0-3] had decreased in 48% of the WED dressing treated burns in comparison to 28% in the SoC treated burns. In terms of wound healing and quality of healing no significant differences were observed between the WED and the SoC dressings. Conclusions This trial demonstrated that the WED dressing was more efficient against biofilm infection than the SoC dressing. In addition, the study concluded that the WED dressing performed equally well as the SoC in terms of burn wound healing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicPlanarian Biology and ElectrostimulationFrench-language works237,207