A disposable, canister-free negative-pressure wound therapy device proves feasible, but of inferior efficacy to conventional therapies for treating cutaneous wounds in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of a canister-free negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) device (PICO™ 1.6, Smith & Nephew Medical Ltd) and evaluate its effect on early phases of wound healing in canine experimental cutaneous wounds. ANIMALS: 5 adult spayed female research Beagles. PROCEDURES: In a pilot experimental study, 1 full-thickness 2-cm X 2-cm cutaneous wound was surgically created on each hemithorax in each dog. Wounds were treated with either NPWT or a conventional wound dressing for 14 days. Bandage changes and wound evaluations were done at 7 time points. First macroscopic appearance of granulation tissue, smoothness of granulation tissue, and percentages of wound contraction and epithelialization were compared between treatments. Wounds were sampled at 3 time points for histopathologic analyses and semiquantitative scoring. RESULTS: NPWT dressings were well tolerated by all dogs. Complete seal of the dressing required the application of adhesive spray, and maintenance of the vacuum lessened over time. Self-limiting skin irritations appeared in all dogs and hampered the attainment of negative pressure. Granulation tissue developed faster and was more abundant in control wounds. Wound contraction, epithelialization, and fibroblast proliferation were greater in control wounds at the end of the study. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This canister-free NPWT device is feasible but problematic in maintaining a vacuum, requiring frequent revisions of the dressing. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the effect of this device on early phases of wound healing. Its benefits in wound healing remain unknown.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".