A single-center, open-labeled, randomized, 6-month, parallel-group study to assess the safety and efficacy of allogeneic cultured keratinocyte sheet transplantation for deep second-degree burn wounds: rationale and design of phase I/II clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Burn-related injuries are a major global health issue, causing 180,000 deaths per year. Early debridement of necrotic tissue in association with a split-thickness skin graft is usually administered for some of the 2nd- and 3rd-degree injuries. However, this approach can be complicated by factors such as a lack of proper donor sites. Artificial skin substitutes have attracted much attention for burn-related injuries. Keratinocyte sheets are one of the skin substitutes that their safety and efficacy have been reported by previous studies. METHODS: Two consecutive clinical trials were designed, one of them is phase I, a non-randomized, open-label trial with 5 patients, and phase II is a randomized and open-label trial with 35 patients. A total number of 40 patients diagnosed with 2nd-degree burn injury will receive allogenic keratinocyte sheet transplantation. The safety and efficacy of allogeneic skin graft with autograft skin transplantation and conventional treatments, including Vaseline dressing and topical antibiotic, will be compared in different wounds of a single patient in phase II. After the transplantation, patients will be followed up on days 3, 7, 10, 14, 21, and 28. In the 3rd and 6th months after the transplantation scar, a wound closure assessment will be conducted based on the Vancouver Scar Scale and the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. DISCUSSION: This study will explain the design and rationale of a cellular-based skin substitute for the first time in Iran. In addition, this work proposes this product being registered as an off-the-shelf product for burn wound management in the country. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT) IRCT20080728001031N31, 2022-04-23 for phase I and IRCT20080728001031N36, 2024-03-15 for phase II.
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 | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".