MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficacy of Hydrogen Sulfide Baths in Complex Burn Rehabilitation: a Single-Center Observational Study

2024· article· en· W4403183795 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Natalia B. Malyutina, А. А. Алексеев, L. V. Shurova, Tatiana V. Shakhanskaya, Yulia G. Kabak

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Rehabilitation Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSulfur Compounds in Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPirogov Russian National Research Medical University
KeywordsObservational studyRehabilitationHydrogen sulfideBurn centerSingle CenterCenter (category theory)SulfideMedicinePhysical therapyMedical emergencyChemistryMaterials sciencePoison controlInternal medicineMetallurgyCrystallography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION. The healing of burn wounds often leads to pathological scars and scar contractures, significantly deteriorating the quality of life for patients who have experienced burn trauma. In comprehensive anti-scar therapy, balneotherapy with sulfide (hydrogen sulfide) waters can be applied alongside primary methods. However, due to a lack of modern information on its effectiveness, this method is not frequently included in rehabilitation programs. AIM. To determine the significance of hydrogen sulfide baths in comprehensive rehabilitation and improve treatment outcomes for patients with hypertrophic post-burn scars. MATERIALS AND METHODS. In the years 2021–2022, 110 patients, including adults and children, participated in an observational study at the Matsesta Balneological Resort (Sochi, Russia) titled “Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Balneotherapy for Post-Burn Scars in Adults and Children”. All patients received a course of 10 hydrogen sulfide irrigations or baths at the Matsesta Balneological Resort. Before the start of the procedure and after completion, scar tissue assessment using the Vancouver Scar Scale and patient surveys were conducted by a physiotherapist. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. Among the patients, there were 40 adults and 60 children. The age of patients ranged from 2 to 61 years, with an average of 19.8 years; 49 were male, and 51 were female. The burn area in patients ranged from 5 to 90 % (average 33.1 %) of the body surface. After the first course of sulfide irrigations, the scar tissue assessment on the Vancouver Scar Scale decreased by 2.1 points in children and 2.2 points in adults. After a repeat course of sulfide irrigations, scar tissue assessment decreased by 1.3 points in children and 1.8 points in adults. According to surveys based on the Dermatology Life Quality Index, before treatment, patients subjectively rated their condition on average at 3.45 points, and after treatment, at an average of 2.76 points. The decrease in scores was mainly due to the reduction or disappearance of symptoms such as dryness, burning, pain, and paresthesia in the scar. CONCLUSION. Balneotherapy with sulfide waters for patients with hypertrophic post-burn scars within the first 24 months after burn trauma is effective for both children and adults.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of Rehabilitation MedicineSame topicSulfur Compounds in BiologyFrench-language works237,207