Evaluation of minced skin grafts in the treatment of post burn leukoderma.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundPost burn leukoderma had been characterized by chalk white depigmented areas of variable sizes and shapes. Re-pigmentation of the hypopigmented lesion is still a big challenge, current treatment modalities for post burn leukoderma include non-surgical techniques and many surgical interventionsMethodsTwenty Patients (18 female & 2 males) with post burn leukoderma were included. Patients’ age ranging from 10 to 50 years. The minimum leukoderma surface area was 0.5 % whereas the maximum was 3%. Patients were assessmed one year post operatively using Vancouver Scar Scale and Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS).ResultsVancouver scar scale results were; Good pigmentation were obtained in 75% of patients, Hyperpigmentation in 20% of patients and Partial pigmentation was in 5% of patients. For POSAS The overall patient opinion scale was 1 (which denote best skin colour) in 80% of patients, score 2 in 10% of patients, score 3 in 5% of patients, score 4 in 5% of patients.ConclusionMinced skin graft can be used safely for the treatment of post burn leukoderma. It is simple reliable technique that can be easily integrated in our daily practice, no need for special instruments or laboratory preparations, gives a satisfactory result for patients with minimal donor morbidity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".