Healing Effect of Hypericum perforatum in Burn Injuries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Burn injury is still the leading cause of mortality and morbidity in burn patients.We comapred healing effect of Hypericum perforatum, silver sulfadiazine and alpha ointments on burn injuries in rat model.Methods: Sixty female Sprague-Dawley rats in an animal experimental study were randomly divided to 5 equal groups as H. perforatum, silver sulfadiazine and (SSD), alpha, gel base and the burn injury left untreated.Wounds were assessed macroscopically and histologic after burn injury and on days 7 th , 14 th and 21 st after treatments.Results: Burn wounds decreased in size on day 7 th in H. perforatum group (P<0.01).Regarding scoring the inflammation, re-epithelialization, angiogenesis, formation of granulation tissue and number of macrophage, the best scores were visible in H. perforatum group, and the worst in the gel base and the burn injury left untreated (P<0.01).Conclusions: H. perforatum was shown to significantly induce reepithelialization, angiogenesis and granulation tissue and decrease the inflammation resulting into a healing process in burn wounds.As H. perforatum is inexpensive and an easily available herbal medicine, it can be considered as a therapeutic of choice to ameliorate burn injuries.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it