Clinical Utility of the Portable Pressure-Measuring Device for Compression Garment Pressure Measurement on Hypertrophic Scars by Burn Injury during Compression Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compression therapy for burn scars can accelerate scar maturation and improve clinical symptoms (pruritus and pain). This study objectively verified the effect of pressure garment therapy in maintaining a therapeutic pressure range for hypertrophic scars. Sixty-five participants (aged 20~70 years) with partial- or full-thickness burns, Vancouver scar scale score of ≥4, and a hypertrophic scar of ≥4 cm × 4 cm were enrolled. Compression pressure was measured weekly using a portable pressure-monitoring device to regulate this pressure at 15~25 mmHg for 2 months. In the control group, the compression garment use duration and all other burn rehabilitation measures were identical except for compression monitoring. No significant difference was noted in the initial evaluations between the two groups (p > 0.05). The improvements in the amount of change in scar thickness (p = 0.03), erythema (p = 0.03), and sebum (p = 0.02) were significantly more in the pressure monitoring group than in the control group. No significant differences were noted in melanin levels, trans-epidermal water loss, or changes measured using the Cutometer® between the two groups. The efficacy of compression garment therapy for burn-related hypertrophic scars can be improved using a pressure-monitoring device to maintain the therapeutic range.
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 | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".