MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310552005 · doi:10.1097/dss.0000000000003625

Quantification of Erythema Associated With Varying Suture Materials in Facial Surgery Repair: A Randomized Prospective Study

2022· article· en· W4310552005 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine Lim, David Zloty

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatologic Surgery · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Sutures and Adhesives
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFibrous jointErythemaSurgeryRandomized controlled trialProspective cohort studyCosmetic Techniques

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A common concern among patients following Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is scar appearance and residual erythema. However, few studies have quantitatively compared scar erythema between different suture materials. OBJECTIVE: To quantify erythema intensity (EI) associated with use of percutaneous nylon, irradiated polyglactin-910 (IPG) and fast-absorbing gut (FG) sutures on facial sites. METHODS: After undergoing MMS, 210 patients were randomized to one of 2 groups. Patients in the first group (n = 105) had their defects repaired half with continuous IPG sutures and the other half with nylon sutures; the second group (n = 105) received IPG and FG sutures. Standardized photographs of scars were taken at 1 week, 2 months, and 6 months postoperatively and computer-assisted image analysis was used to quantify EI. RESULTS: The average EI was comparable between all 3 suture materials at 1 week, 2 months, and 6 months. From 1 week to 2 months, EI in nylon, IPG, and FG sutures decreased by 24.8%, 12.8%, and 17.9% (p < .05), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in EI among suture types between 2 and 6 months. CONCLUSION: Erythema decreased significantly during early scar maturation in all groups and was comparable between all suture materials at 1 week, 2 months, and 6 months.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatologic SurgerySame topicSurgical Sutures and AdhesivesFrench-language works237,207