Evaluation of Scar Quality after Treatment of Superficial Burns with Dressilk® and Suprathel®—In an Intraindividual Clinical Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Various synthetic and biological wound dressings are available for the treatment of superficial burns, and standard care differs among hospitals. Nevertheless, the search for an ideal wound dressing offering a safe healing environment as well as optimal scar quality while being economically attractive is a continuing process. In recent years, Dressilk®, which consists of pure silk, has become the standard of care for the treatment of superficial burns in our hospital. However, no long-term scar-evaluation studies have been performed to compare Dressilk® with the often-used and more expensive Suprathel® in the treatment of superficial burns. Methods: Subjective and objective scar evaluations were performed three, six, and twelve months after treatment in patients who received simultaneous treatment of 20 superficial burn wounds with both Suprathel® and Dressilk®. The evaluations were performed using the Vancouver Scar Scale, the Cutometer®, Mexameter®, Tewameter®, and the O2C®. Results: Both dressings showed mostly equivalent results in subjective scar evaluations. In the objective scar evaluations, the wounds treated with Dressilk® showed a faster return to the qualities of non-injured skin. Wound areas treated with the two dressings showed no significant differences in elasticity and transepidermal water loss after 12 months. Only oxygen saturation was significantly lower in wound areas treated with Suprathel® (p = 0.008). Subjectively, wound areas treated with Dressilk® showed significantly higher pigmentation after six months, which was not apparent after 12 months. Conclusion: Both wound dressings led to esthetically satisfying scar recovery without significant differences from normal uninjured skin after 12 months. Therefore, Dressilk® remains an economically and clinically interesting alternative to Suprathel® for the treatment of superficial 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".