Efficacy of a Polylactic Acid Matrix for the Closure of Wagner Grade 1 and 2 Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Single-center, Prospective Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: CAMPs are used for treating refractory DFUs where other treatments have failed. PLA is a CAMP that has demonstrated effectiveness in promoting healing in burns and acute wounds. OBJECTIVE: A single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing PLA-guided closure matrices versus collagen dressings was conducted to assess healing of Wagner grades 1 and 2 DFUs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 30 participants were randomized to receive weekly debridement, wound care, and DFU offloading plus either PLA or collagen CAMPs. The primary outcome was the time to achieve full healing, and the secondary outcome was the proportion of ulcers healed at 12 weeks. RESULTS: The median time to achieve full healing was 9.3 ± 2.9 weeks in the PLA group versus 14.8 ± 8.1 weeks in the collagen group (P = .021), representing a 44% reduction in the time to heal. Furthermore, by 12 weeks, 80% of the PLA-treated ulcers were healed compared to only 33% in the collagen group (P = .025). CONCLUSION: The results of this study show PLA matrices induce a potent healing response that leads to reduced healing time and an increased OR for achieving healing by 12 weeks.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".