A comparative study of the efficacy and safety of pure silica gel and chitosan quaternary ammonium salt silica gel in hypertrophic scar treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To compare clinical efficacy of pure silica gel and chitosan quaternary ammonium salt silica gel (SQASC) in treatment of hypertrophic scars.Methods: Eighty-four patients with hypertrophic scars, who were admitted to hospital, were randomly divided into study group and control group with 42 patients in each group. Study group was treated with SQASC while control group was treated with pure silica gel. Scar scores (Vancouver scar score, VSS), scar aesthetics (Patient and observer scar assessment scale, POSAS), symptom improvement and adverse reactions were compared between groups before and after treatment.Results: Before treatment, there were no differences in VSS and POSAS scores for each aspect between groups. After treatment, VSS and POSAS scores for each aspect in study group were significantly lower than those in control group (p < 0.05). Congestion, itching, pain disappearance and thickness reduction occurred significantly earlier in study group than in control group (p < 0.05). Incidence of adverse reactions in study group was 4.76 %, which was significantly lower than 19.05% in control group (p < 0.05).Conclusion: Compared with pure silica gel, SQASC effectively alleviates symptoms of hypertrophic scars and aesthetics with fewer adverse effects. In future studies, sample size will be increased and study duration will be extended appropriately.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".