Clinical application of polylactic acid/gelatin nanofibre membrane in hard-to-heal lower extremity venous ulcers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of polylactic acid/gelatin nanofibre membranes (PGNMs) in treating hard-to-heal lower extremity venous ulcer wounds. Method: In this prospective study, patients with venous leg ulcers (VLUs) were treated with PGNMs or standard of care. Wounds were assessed once a week until the wound was fully healed. Results: The treatment group was comprised of 10 patients with VLUs, aged between 47–64 years, with an average age of 56.58±6.19 years. The wounds were located in the lower leg and/or ankle. Average wound area was 8.91±13.57cm 2 (range: 1.5–52.5cm 2 ). Average wound healing time was 18.75±16.36 days. Of the patients, nine (90%) rated their pain as lighter when removing the dressing, with an average pain value of 2.0±1.0 points. There was less secondary trauma to the wound surface, and less bleeding. At six months after the wound healing, the scar evaluation (using the Vancouver Scar Scale) result was 3.75±1.96 points. Conclusion: In this study, the PGNMs were safe and effective in treating hard-to-heal lower extremity VLUs.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".